PA 

3829 

D5 

1905 

MAIN 


UC-NRLF 


B    M    D33    fl^D 
Zbc  THn(v>erslti2  of  Cbfcaflo 

FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


ES 
I 


THE  IDLE  ACTOR  IN  ^SCHYLUS 


A  DISSERTATION 

[;UBMITTED    TO    THE     FACULTY    OF    THE     GRADUATE    SCHOOL     OF     ARTS 

AND    LITERATURE    IN    CANDIDACY    FOR    THE    DEGREE    OF 

DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY 

(department  of  THE  GREEK  LANGUAGE  AND  LITERATURE) 


FRANK  W.  DIGNAN 


;;v^ 


CHICAGO 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 

1905 


Zbc  Tanlverelts  of  Cbfcago 

FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


THE  IDLE  ACTOR  IN  ^SCHYLUS 


A   DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED    TO    THE     FACULTY    OF    THE    GRADUATE    SCHOOL     OF    ARTS 

AND    LITERATURE    IN     CANDIDACY     FOR    THE    DEGREE     OF 

DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY 

(department  of  the  greek  LANGUAGE  AND  LITERATURE) 


BY 

FRANK  VV.  DIGNAN 


CHICAGO 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 

1905 


CoPYItlGHT,    1905 

Bv  THE  University  of  Chicago 


IN  MEMORIAM 
CAROLI  FRATRIS 


159791 


MA  I  ''^ 


I  wish  to  acknowledge  my  deep  indebtedness  to  Professor  Paul  Shorey 
and  to  the  other  members  of  the  Greek  Faculty  of  the  University;  and  in 
a  very  special  manner  to  Professor  Edward  Capps,  without  whose  constant 
assistance  this  study  would  never  have  seen  the  light. 


THE  IDLE  ACTOR  IN  ^SCHYLUS 

The  famous  scene  in  the  Frogs  of  Aristophanes,  in  which  ^Eschylus 
and  Euripides  ridicule  each  other's  methods,  has  been  made  the  subject 
of  many  dissertations ;  but  one  point — really  the  central  point  in  the  new 
poet's  arraignment  of  the  old — has  not  yet  been  investigated  with  the  care 
which  it  seems  to  deserve,  ^schylus  is  charged  in  general  with  bombast 
and  in  particular  with  aiming  at  the  statuesque  effect  of  a  silent  actor. 
Achilles  and  Niobe,  says  Euripides,  sit  silent  through  a  large  part  of  the 
play,  in  order  to  give  an  exaggerated  effect  to  their  words  when  they  do 
speak,  and  these  cases  are  taken  as  typical  of  ^schylus's  method  as  con- 
trasted with  that  of  Euripides.  Such  a  charge  seems  reasonable  enough 
at  first  sight  in  view  of  iEschylus's  elevated  and  somewhat  pompous  tone, 
and  accordingly  the  critics,  ancient  and  modern,  have  accepted  the  allega- 
tion as  substantially  true. 

It  seems  time,  however,  now  that  our  understanding  of  the  material 
conditions  and  the  course  of  development  of  early  tragedy  has  been 
greatly  enlarged,  to  reconsider  the  matter.  May  it  not  be  that  the  fault 
in  ^schylus's  technique,  if  it  really  exists,  is  due  to  material  limitations 
and  to  the  restraints  of  tradition  ?  This  is  the  question  which  I  shall 
attempt  to  answer  in  the  following  study.  The  material  at  hand  is,  of 
course,  far  from  complete,  but  some  Hght  should  be  thrown  on  the  matter 
by  the  consideration  of  the  evidence  as  to  the  lost  plays  referred  to  by 
Aristophanes,  by  the  examination  of  the  plays  still  extant,  and  by  a  com- 
parison wath  the  work  of  Sophocles  and  Euripides. 

It  will  be  well  to  have  before  us  the  text  of  the  passage  in  the  Frogs: 

EY.  TovTov  oik  Trpwr'  iXey^w, 

oj?  ^v  dXa^cbv  Koi  cfiivai,  OLOi<i  T£  Tov?  $€aTa<; 
910  iirfTrdra,  /Ltwpous  Aa/3a)v  Tra/aa  ^/DWt;(<i)  Tfyx(f>evTa<;. 

irpuiTUTTa  fjikv  yap  eva  tlv'  av  KaOlatv  iyKa\viJ/as, 
A^^tXAea  tlv'  rj  Nto/^T^v,  to  TrpoauiiTOV  ov)(l  SeiKvvs, 
Trp6<j-)^rjfxa  ttJs  rpaycpbtas,  ypv^ovTas  ovSe  tovtL 

AI.    jxa.  Tov  l^l'  ov  8rjd\ 

EY.  6  8e  xopos  y'  ijpeiSev  6pfJiu6ov<;  av 

915  fxeXwv  €<^£^s  T€TTapa<i  ^we^ws  av    01  8'  eaiywv. 

AI.    iyo}  S'  t)(aipov  rrj  (Tiodtjtj,  Kat  /xe  tovt'  erepirev 
oi)(  T]TTOv  rj  vvv  oi  XaXovvTc?. 

7 


8  THE  IDLE   ACTOR  IN   ^SCHYLUS 

EY.  ^Ai'^ios  yap  rjcrda, 

crd(f>'  icrdi. 
AI.  KafJLavTio  boKw.      tl  Bk  ravr'  eSpacr'  6  Sctva; 

EY.     vtt'  dXa^ovEtas,  Tv'  6  6€arr]<;  TrpoaBoKiov  Kadfjro, 
Q20  OTTod'  17  Nto/3r;  Tt  (fiOey^eTai  •    to  Spa/xa  8'  ak  Sirjet. 

AI.     w  Trafj.iTOvrjpo<i,  ol    ap'  €<f>evaKi^oprjV  vir'  avTov. 

Tt'  (TKopOLva  Koi  Sva<l}op(.Z<; ; 
EY.  OTi  al'Tov  Cs^Aey^oj. 

KaTTtir'  CTTCiS^  ravra  Xrjprjaeu  Kal  to  Spapxi 
77017  peaoLT).  prjpaT'  av  (Soiui  oouStK'  etTrev, 
925  6(f>px<;  €;(Oi'Ta  kui  Ade^ovs,  SetV  arra  poppopwTrd, 

dyvwra  Tois  6€wp.ivoL<;. 

A  little  further  on  (948  ff.)  Euripides  contrasts  his  own  method  with 
this: 

EY.     tTreir'  ciTro  roJi'  irpwTwv  i-jriLv  oi'Skv  TraprjK    av  dpyov, 
dAA'  lAcyev  17  yvi*?;  Tt  /iot  ;(0j  SoGAo;  ouSei'  t;ttov, 
950  X*^  he.(JTT6T7i<i  \^  TTapdiva  ^(7/  ypav<;  av. 

******* 
EY.    cTTCtTa  TovTovdl  AaAciv  eStSa^a  — 
A  IS.  ^fjf'-i-  xdyw. 

955  *"^  TT/jtv  OLod$ai  y'  u!<^cAes  /itcros  hiappayrjvaL. 

It  is  clear  that  the  poet  has  in  mind  a  general  trait  in  the  work  of 
vEschylus  as  distinguished  from  that  of  Euripides;  for  the  passage  would 
be  pointless  unless  the  instances  mentioned  were  typical.  Stripped  of  its 
comic  verbiage,  what  is  the  essence  of  the  charge  ?  First,  in  general,  that 
he  imposed  upon  the  audience  by  bombast,  and  then,  more  specifically, 
that  he  aroused  expectation  by  the  cheap  device  of  a  long  silence  on  the 
part  of  an  actor.  That  the  silence,  and  not  the  sitting  with  veiled  head,  is 
the  point  of  the  criticism  is  shown  by  the  contrast  with  Euripides's  method — 

AoAcTi'  eSiSa^a.* 

Later  writers  of  antiquity  seem  to  have  taken  the  charge  seriously,  and 
there  are  several  echoes  of  this  passage  which  repeat  its  substance  without 
the  comic  tone.     The  Ravennas  scholiast  on  vs.  911  says:   0  * hyiXX€v<;  hi 

Ka6i]piv6<;  iaTL  Kai  ovk  aTroKpiv6pivo<;  Trap'  Alcr^vXw  (v   opdpaTi   (Triypa(f)OptVio 

^pvilv  ^  'ExTopos  AvTpois.     olBiv  8t  6  'A;^tAA£us  <f>6€yytTat.'     An  additional 

■  Cf.  schol.  ad  Kan.  048:    dpy6f    uxrirfp  <ri>  ttjv  yii^rjv  Kal  Tdv  'Ax'XX^a  iTrolrjaas 

»  Thr  scnUncc  is  incomplete,  as  Beigk  saw,  Ilcrmcs,  X\'III  (1S83),  p.  483,  and 
the  la(  una  is  doubtless  to  be  filled  by  reference  to  the  Vita  ^T\i)v  iv  apxa^i  6\lya 
irpbi  'EpfjLTJv  ifioipaiay-,  so  Weeklein,  .^sclt.  Fab.,  p.  537. 


THE   IDLE    ACTOR   IN    .^SCHYLUS  9 

note  is  found  in  the  Venetus:  "AAXws.  eiko?  t6v  iv  toTs  ^pvilv  'AxtXAca 
r]  "EktOjoos  XvrpOL^  •  rj  tov  iv  MvpfJuBocnv,  os  P-^XP'-  '''p'-^v  rfp-tpixiv  ovSev 
<j>6iyy€Tai.i     Again,  in  the  Vita  Aeschyli:  ware  8ia  to  irXtovd^iLv  tw  /3dpei 

Twv  TTpoarwTTcav  Kw/xwSetTai  Trapa.  'ApLcrTO(f>dvov<;  {'Api(TTO(f>dveL  conj.  Bcrgk). 
iv  p.€V  yap  rrj  'Sto/Sr]  <( ,  Nto^Sv;  Bothe)'  ews  Tpirr^s  y]jxipa<;'i  inLKaO-qfJiivr] 
TiS  Td(f>(o  tS)v  TraiSwv  oiSev  (jyOeyyerai,  iTriKeaaXvpLfJiivr]  •  €v  re  toTs  Ekto^os 
XvTpoi<;  'A;)((.AAevs  o/xotws  iyK€KaXvp.iJitvo<;  ov  <f)6iyyeTaL,  ttXtjv  iv  dp;(at?  oAtya 
Trpos  'Ep/x^i/  dixoL/SaZa.  Schol.  at/  Prom.  436  (Schiitz)  :  a-Lwirwcri  Trapa  Trotr/- 
rats  Ta  irpoawTra,  rj  8t'  ar^aStav,  ok  'A;(tAAers  iv  rot?  <^/3Utt  2o<^okA£Ovs 
(At(r;(uAor)*  ^  Slol  ttjv  (Tvp(J30pav,  cJs  17  Ntd/3r;  Trap'  Atcr^uAo);  and  the  later 
note,  a(f  440  (Dind.)  :  rj  cny-q  l^et  ttoAAols  /ne^dSot;?  ....  w?  17  l^iio/Sr)  8ia 
T^v  vircp^dXXovaav  Xvjrrjv  iattoTra,  kol  o'lov  to  tov  A^^tAAews,  otc  iaTdXrj(Tav 
Trpos  e/celvov  6  TuA^u^ios  Kai  Eupv/3aTr/?,  KuAo{}vTes  ets  p.d)(r]V,  iaiyqcrev. 
Eustathius  orf  0</.  1941,  i:  Trapa  Ato-;(vAci)  Kd6r)VTaL  irov  Trpoauyira  cnwrrwvTa 
i<l>'  iKavov  Kara  (T^^/xa  rj  TrevOov;  r/  OavfiacTfXOv  rj  Ttvos  inpoiov  TrdOov;  •  koI 
eoiKcv  rj   TpaywSt'a  evrev^ev  Xa^ovcra  to.  TotavTa  (T0<l>L^e(T6aL.      See  also  0(^  //. 

1343.  59  ff- 

In  modern  times  the  matter  has  received  little  attention  from  scholars. 
Among  the  editors  of  Aristophanes,  Bekker  (1829),  in  commenting  on  the 
passage,  discusses  the  place  of  aTrdTrj  in  the  drama  and  remarks  that 
Euripides  has  done  the  very  thing  that  he  blames  ^schylus  for  doing, 
citing  a  few  instances;  Dindorf  (1837)  has  a  brief  and  commonplace  note; 
Fritzsche  (1845)  discusses  at  some  length  the  cases  referred  to  by  Aristoph- 
anes, but  does  not  generalize;  Kock  (1876)  quotes  the  passages  from  the 
grammarians,  but  adds  nothing  of  importance;  Blaydes  (1889)  besides  the 
usual  comments  has  a  suggestion  that  the  early  prominence  of  the  chorus 
had  something  to  do  with  the  matter;  Van  Leeuwen  (1896)  gives  notes  on 
the  plays  referred  to  and  on  Phrynichus,  intimating  that  the  silent  actor 
was  a  natural  consequence  of  the  one-actor  stage  in  the  development  of 
tragedy;  but  he  does  not  consider  the  matter  in  general. 

The  historians  of  Greek  Hterature  have  nothing  bearing  on  the  point 
beyond  a  few  words  of  comment  on  particular  instances  when  very  strik- 

3  Hermann  {Opusc,  III,  p.  42):  "haec  postrema  aut  hominis  sunt  indocti,  qui 
quae  de  Niobe  legisset  ad  Myrmidones  transtulit,  aut  corrupta  aliquot  verborum 
omissione."  Wecklein,  loc.  cit.,  gives  the  more  sweeping  opinion:  "futilia  sunt  quae 
de  Achille  in  Mvrmidonibus  velato  et  taciturno  et  de  legatis  ad  eum  missis  scholia 
recentiora  habent,"  citing  the  Venetus  note  ad  Ran.  911,  and  the  second  note  ad 
Prom.,  quoted  above. 

4  The  correction  rplrov  /xipovs,  proposed  by  Victorius,  is  possibly  right,  though 
it  was  rejected  by  Hermann.  Wecklein  adopts  it  in  his  recension  of  the  Vita,  I,  p.  467 
of  his  edition  of  ^schylus  (1885). 


lO  THE  IDLE  ACTOR  IN  ^SCHYLUS 

ing.  The  same  is  true,  in  general,  of  writers  on  Greek  tragedy.  Hermann, 
in  restoring  the  lost  dramas,  considers  the  instances  mentioned  (Opuscula, 
Vol.  Ill,  pp.  37  ff.,  and  Vol.  V,  pp.  136  fif.);  Haigh  (Tragic  Drama  of 
the  Greeks,  p.  35)  discusses  the  striking  instance  in  the  Suppliants,  but 
does  not  generalize.  The  only  writer  who  has  even  so  much  as  made  a 
collection  of  notable  instances  in  the  extant  plays  of  .-Eschylus  is  Paul 
Girard  ("  L'expression  des  masques  dans  les  drames  d'Eschyle,"  Revue 
des  eludes  grecques,  VIII  (1895),  pp.  118  ff.,  and  pp.  102  ff.  of  the 
reprint),  and  he  does  it  only  incidentally  to  illustrate  his  remark: 
"Jamais  ils  [les  poetes]  n'ont  recule  devant  les  scenes  de  silence,  et 
Eschyle,  en  particulier,  semble  les  avoir  multipliees  de  parti  pris  dans 
son  theatre."  He  assumes  in  each  case  a  deUberate  use  for  artistic  effect: 
"Ainsi,  le  mutisme,  un  mutisme  pathetique,  a  bien  6t6,  comme  le  lui 
reproche  Euripidedans  les  Grenouilles,  un  de  sesproced^s"  (ibid.,  p.  109). 

We  must  now  consider  more  carefully  the  accusation  of  Aristophanes 
and  see  what  can  be  made  out  of  the  examples  mentioned  by  him. 

The  reference  to  Phrynichus  in  vs.  910  is  important. s  Aristophanes 
hints  that  the  early  history  of  the  drama  is  in  a  measure  responsible.  The 
dramas  of  Phrynichus  were  of  the  older  type,  in  which  the  choral  element 
was  much  more  important.  Accustomed  to  this,  the  audience  would  be 
less  impatient  if  an  actor  in  /Eschylus's  plays  were  silent.  This,  at  least, 
is  the  meaning  of  Aristophanes. ^ 

As  to  the  cases  of  Achilles  and  Niobe,  not  much  is  now  to  be  had  in 
the  way  of  definite  information. ^  The  grammarians  quoted  above  seem, 
in  general,  to  know  the  plays,  Ijut  we  cannot  be  certain  of  this.  Nothing  is 
known  of  the  history  of  these  pieces  in  later  antiquity,  except  that  the 
Myrmidons  survived  till  the  time  of  Accius,  who  made  an  imitation  of  it, 
probably  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century  B.  C* 

5  Aristophanes  nfers  to  Phrynichus  as  old-fashioned  and  as  a  favorite  of  the 
older  ,\thenians  of  his  time  in  Vesp.  220:  fiivvpl^oyres  m^Xtj  ipxaia  fie\iffidu>yo(l>pvyi- 
Xi)paTa  (of  the  dicasts),  and  269:  x/jwtoj  ijfiuv  rjytiT'  Slv  ^Suv  i>pvvlxov  (of  Phiiocleon). 
Aristophanes  clearly  approved  of  him;   cf.  Av.  750;    Thesm.  164. 

^  Merry,  whom  Blaydes  quotes  apparently  with  approval,  writes  this  remarkable 
note:  "After  being  accustomed  to  the  usage  of  Phrynichus,  the  audience  /f//  they 
were  being  defrauded  by  the  introduction  of  a  mute  person,  instead  of  the  actor  who 
supplied  the  gist  of  the  play,  and  the  inspiration  of  the  chorus."  He  misses  the  point 
entirely.  /Eschylus  was  able  to  impose  upon  his  audi.-nces,  Euripides  charges,  because 
thiy  were  yMpoi,  accustomed  to  nothing  better  by  the  leading  tragic  poets  of  the  day. 

7  See  Hermann,  Opusc,  HI,  pp.  37  ff.,  and  V,  pp.  136  t7.;  Welcker,  Die  griechi- 
schen  Tragddien,  I,  pp.  33  f. 

8  See  Ribb<ck,  Ndmische  Tragodie,  pp.  340-55-  Wecklein,  however,  dissents 
from  this  view,  SitzungsbericlUe  der  bayrrischen  Akademie  zu  Munchen,  1891,  p.  327. 


THE   IDLE   ACTOR  IN   ^SCHYLUS  II 

Apparently  the  Myrmidons,  Nereides,  and  Phrygians  formed  a  trilogy, 
in  which  the  first  play  contained  the  reluctant  consent  of  Achilles  to  the 
use  of  his  troops  by  Patroclus  and  the  la  tier's  death;  the  second,  the 
slaying  of  Hector;  the  third,  the  visit  of  Priam  to  Achilles.  Did  the 
noteworthy  silence  of  Achilles  occur  in  the  first  play  or  in  the  third  ? 
The  Ravennas  scholiast  on  Aristophanes  and  the  earlier  commentator  on 
Prom.  440  say  it  was  in  the  third;  so  says  the  writer  in  the  Vita.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  late  scholiast  to  the  Prometheus  can  refer  only  to  the 
Myrmidons,  and  the  Venetus  scholiast  on  Aristophanes  is  in  doubt. 
Unfortunately  neither  the  fragments  of  the  plays  nor  a  comparison  with 
those  of  Accius  gives  a  clear  indication  as  to  where  this  scene  of 
silence  came.  It  may  well  have  occurred  in  either;  thus,  it  might  express 
Achilles's  pride  and  stubbornness  when  besought  by  the  chorus  of  Myr- 
midons and  the  other  Greeks  to  enter  the  battle,  or  it  might  be  due  to 
his  grief  for  his  comrade  and  his  hatred  of  Priam. 9  The  most  natural 
explanation  of  the  confusion  is  to  suppose  that  something  of  the  sort 
occurred  in  each  drama;  though  the  figure  of  the  veiled  Achilles,  to 
which  Aristophanes  explicitly  refers,  must  be  assigned  to  the  Phrygians. 
The  trilogy,  it  may  be  added,  probably  belonged  to  the  middle  period  of 
.^schylus,  and  may  be  classed  with  the  Persians  from  the  point  of  view 
of  structure.     It  is  fairly  clear  that  there  were  but  two  actors. '° 

As  to  Niobe,  the  nature  of  her  silence  is  clear.  She  sits,  plunged  in 
grief,  at  the  tomb  of  her  children  and  refuses  to  speak  or  unveil  her  head. 
If  the  corrected  reading  in  the  Vita  be  right,  this  silence  lasts  through  a 
third  of  the  piece. 

Before  passing  on  to  a  consideration  of  the  extant  plays  I  wish  to  call 
attention  to  certain  conditions  which  influenced  the  technique  of  iEschylus. 

9  In  either  case  it  must  have  occurred  in  the  first  part  of  the  play.  This  is 
borne  out  by  the  Aristophanes  passage.  At  any  rate,  Achilles  was  present  while  the 
chorus  rendered  the  parodos  in  both  plays;  c/.  irsig.  Myrtn.  131  (Nauck): 

rdSe  /xiv  Xei^crcrets,  (paldifj.''  'Ax'XXeO, 
5opL\vfiAvTovs  Aavauiv  fjidxOovs,  .... 
and  a  wag  in  Aristophanes  apud  Athen.,  21  i.  (Kock  678)  remarks: 
Toiti  ^pvyas  oida  decjpojv, 

Sre  Tif.  Ilpidfj.({!  (rvWv(T6fi€voi  tov  iratS'  '^Xdov  redveu.  ra, 
TfoXXd  ....  (j-x'»7/i'tciri(rai'Tas. 

10  See  Maurice  Croiset,  Revue  des  etudes  grecques,  VII  (1894),  p.  151,  and  Paul 
Girard,  ibid.,  VIII  (1895),  p.  118,  note  4.  There  are  no  indications  as  to  the  date 
of  the  Niobe. 


12  THE   IDLE   ACTOR   IN   AESCHYLUS 

The  theater  at  ^schylus's  disposal  was  intended  primarily  for  choral 
performances  and  not  for  the  drama;  as  a  result,  the  chorus  was  more  at 
home  there  than  the  actors.  The  modem  theater  comes  to  a  focus  at  the 
stage;  the  /^schylean  theater  focused  at  the  center  of  the  orchestra.  The 
old  circular  dancing-place  had  followed  a  logical  and  inevitable  course  of 
development.  Set  on  a  hillside,  it  utilized  the  slope  above  as  an  audi- 
torium, which  was  prolonged  on  two  sides  by  means  of  an  embankment. 
The  fourth  side  could  not  be  so  used,  and  here  the  orchestra  terminated  in 
a  retaining-wall.  On  either  side,  just  below  the  end  of  the  auditorium, 
a  passageway  sloped  up  to  the  orchestra.  Somewhere  within  the  circle, 
probably  at  its  center,  there  must  have  been  an  altar.  This  completed 
the  arrangements  for  a  choral  performance. 

The  drama  at  first  required  little  more.  A  dressing-booth,  somewhere 
in  the  vicinity  but  out  of  sight,  was  the  first  essential.  Just  where  it  was 
placed  cannot  now  be  told,  but  it  was  probably  at  the  outer  end  of  one  of 
the  side  passages.  With  the  addition  of  this  dressing-booth,  a  drama  of 
the  earliest  sort  could  be  produced.  The  single  actor  could  appear  at 
intervals  and,  mounting  the  steps  of  the  altar,  dehver  his  brief  speeches  or 
take  part  in  dialogues  with  the  chorus-leader.  This  was  the  theater  of 
Thespis." 

The  earliest  existing  plays  of  /Eschylus  show  us  a  state  of  things  not 
essentially  different.  There  are  two  actors  and  a  primitive  stage-setting, 
but  otherwise  very  little  change  in  material  and  external  conditions.  The 
action  still  takes  place  in  the  orchestra,  and  an  actor  must  still  at  every 
entrance  come  from  the  distant  booth  up  through  the  parodos  and  over 
a  considerable  space  in  the  orchestra  before  reaching  his  place.  At  every 
exit  he  must  retrace  the  whole  distance.  The  "setting"  does  not  yet 
provide  a  more  convenient  door. 

It  seems  fairly  clear  that  this  early  setting  was  an  outgrowth  of  the 
original  altar  of  Dionysus.  At  first  this  altar  had  been  the  center  of 
action,  but  it  was  soon  outgrown.  It  was  a  sacred  object  and  could  not 
be  transformed  into  a  tomb  or  enlarged  by  temporary  boarding.  More- 
over, it  was  i)rohably  in  the  center,  and  the  action  gravitated  toward  the 
outer  edge  of  the  circle,  where  the  actor  could  face  the  whole  house  at  once, 
and  where  he  would  be  nearest  to  the  parodoi.  So  it  seems  to  have  become 
customary,  if  we  may  be  j)erniitted  to  generalize  on  the  basis  of  the  small 
number  of  |)la\s  from  tliis  ])crio(l  wliich  we  possess,  to  erect  a  large  altar- 
like  structure,  (loul)tlcss  of  boards,  on  the  fartlicr  side  of  the  orchestra. 

"  D6ri)fi'l(l-Rii.sth,  Das  griechischf  Thentcr,  \^\^.  2^-^b,  193-95,  366-69. 


THE  IDLE  ACTOR  IN  ^SCHYLUS  I  3 

It  appears  as  an  altar  in  the  Suppliants  and  Septem,  as  a  tomb  in  the 
Persians,  and  as  a  rock  in  the  Prometheus.^ ^ 

This  helped  out  the  action  by  furnishing  a  scene,  but  the  awkwardness  of 
entrance  and  exit  remained.  It  was  not  merely  that  so  much  time  was  con- 
sumed in  coming  and  going;  there  was  the  difficulty  of  finding  pretexts  for 
such  movements.  A  modern  interior  scene  is  the  ideal  of  easy  movement, 
for  a  slight  pretext  will  take  a  character  from  one  room  to  another;  a  scene 
before  a  palace  or  temple  is  almost  as  good;  but  an  open  place  with  no 
house  in  sight  involves  difficulties  which  are  almost  insuperable. 

If  there  were  any  doubt  as  to  the  reality  of  such  a  period  in  the  history 
of  the  theater  of  Dionysus  at  Athens,  the  remains  of  the  theater  at  Thoricus 
would  be  sufficient  witness.  In  spite  of  its  unusual  shape,  this  little  build- 
ing exhibits  the  essential  features  of  the  ^schylean  theater.  A  flat,  rec- 
tangular space  on  the  hillside  serves  as  the  orchestra.  The  slope  above 
has  been  formed  into  an  elliptical  auditorium  with  retaining-walls  at  the 
ends.  On  either  side  of  the  orchestra  is  a  broad  passage,  the  western  one 
being  partly  occupied  by  a  small  temple.  Outside  the  eastern  passage 
are  the  ruins  of  another  building,  probably  a  storehouse  for  scenic  prop- 
erties. The  remaining  side  of  the  orchestra  is  entirely  open  and  terminates 
in  a  retaining- wall.     There  is  no  trace  of  a  scene  building. '3 

It  was  for  such  a  building  as  this  that  the  four  earlier  plays  of  ^Eschylus 
were  written.  Before  the  time  of  the  Oresteia,  however,  a  great  advance 
had  been  made.  A  temporary  building  was  erected  along  the  outer  edge 
of  the  orchestra  and  represented  a  habitation  or  temple  connected  with 
the  story. '4  It  was  now  possible  for  a  character  who  was  supposed  to  live 
in  the  palace  or  serve  in  the  temple  to  withdraw  with  little  or  no  expressed 
motive  when  his  presence  was  no  longer  desired.  Other  characters  would 
still  use  the  side  passages,  but  the  management  of  their  exits  and  entrances 

I*  The  most  important  discussions  of  the  early  ^schylean  theater  (beside  the 
work  mentioned  in  note  ii)  are:  Wilamowitz,  "Die  Biihne  des  Aischylos,"  Hermes, 
XXI  (i886),  pp.  597-622;  Todt,  "Noch  einmal  die  Btihne  des  Aischylos,"  Philologiis, 
XLVIII  (1889),  pp.  505-41;  Bodensteiner,  "Szenische  Fragen,"  Jahrbilcher  fiir 
classische  Philologie,  Suppl.  XIX  (1893),  pp.  639  ff. ;  Bethe,  Prolegomena  zur  Geschichte 
des  Theaters  im  Altertum,  chap,  v;  Robert,  "Zur  Theaterfrage,"  Hermes,  XXXII 
(1897),  pp.  421  ff. 

13  Papers  of  the  American  School  at  Athens,  V  (18S6-90),  pp.  6-26;  Dorpfeld- 
Reisch,  op.  cit.,  pp.  109-11. 

'4  The  change  must  have  been  made  about  465  B.  C,  for  ^schylus's  Myrmidons, 
Nereides,  Phrygians,  Memnon,  Thracians,  Lycurgeia,  and  Philoctetes  apparently 
required  a  tent  or  other  dwelling  in  the  background,  and  all  of  these  must  have  come 
before  the  Oresteia;  on  the  other  hand,  Sophocles's  Nausicaa  and  Polyxena  probably 
required  no  such  background. 


14  THE    IDLE    ACTOR   IX   .ESCHYLUS 

also  was  rendered  easier  by  the  increased  wealth  of  incident  aflforded  by 
the  presence  of  such  a  building. 

I  shall  attempt  to  point  out  how  this  material  fact  of  a  primitive  theater 
and  the  resulting  difficulty  in  the  arranging  of  a  plot  are  largely  responsible 
for  the  "idle  actor"  in  ^^schylus.  But  first  another  factor  should  be  men- 
tioned. Every  reader  of  the  Attic  drama  is  struck  by  the  strong  tendency 
toward  dialogue  between  two  speakers.  If  three  characters  are  present, 
one  is  apt  to  be  neglected  for  a  considerable  time.'s  The  explanation  of 
this  convention  is  to  be  found,  in  part  at  least,  in  the  histor\-  of  the  drama. 
When  the  songs  of  the  chorus  first  began  to  be  diversified  by  short  speeches, 
the  purpose  of  these  interludes  was  doubtless  to  give  themes  for  the  odes. 
A  messenger  announced  an  event,  and  then  an  appropriate  song  was 
sung.  Dialogue  must  have  begun  with  the  questions  of  the  chorus-leader 
and  the  messenger's  answers.  As  the  art  developed,  the  speaker's  functions 
were  enlarged,  especially  after  the  addition  of  other  actors,'^  but  the  old 
stiffness  of  set  speeches  and  regular  question  and  answer  was  not  entirely 
outgrown.  Nor  indeed  would  the  freedom  of  modem  ensemble  scenes 
have  suited  the  elevated  tone  of  Greek  tragedy  or  the  severity  of  Athenian 
taste. '7 

To  this  should  be  added  also  the  early  importance  of  the  chorus.  The 
chorus  is  at  first  practically  an  actor.  Though  the  part  it  plays  is  usually 
a  passive  one,  convention  requires  that  it  should  figure  in  all  scenes.  The 
old  single  actor  had  of  course  addressed  the  chorus,  and  the  habit  clung 
even  when  he  might  more  naturally  have  conversed  with  his  brother-actor. 
The  inevitable  result  is  that  one  of  the  characters  is  temporarily  dropped 
from  notice. '8 

The  difficulty  of  constructing  scenes  under  these  conditions  appears  most 
clearly  in  the  Suppliants. ^^  The  only  setting  is  a  Koivo/Jw/xia  or  altar  of 
various  gods  (vss.  189,  222,  etc.)  with  whose  statues  it  is  adorned  (vss. 
209-20,  463-65).  To  this  altar  both  Danaus  and  the  chorus,  in  their  char- 
acter of  supphants,  frequently  betake  themselves  (see  189,  208,  242,  713, 
731,  832,  852).     From  his  elevated  position  on  the  steps  of  the  altar  Danaus 

•s  C/.  Navarre,  Dionysos,  pp.  219  f.  '*  C/.  .Aristotle,  Poetics,  4. 

■'C/.  Frcytag,  Technique  of  the  Drama  (English  translation,  iqoo),  chap,  ii,  sec.  iii. 

'*  In  e.xamining  the  plays,  I  have  considered,  in  general,  only  the  cases  in  which 
an  actor  is  idle  for  twenty  lines  or  more.  By  "idle"  I  mean  neither  speaking  nor 
addressed. 

'9  The  play  is  now  gi^erally  conceded  to  be  the  oldest  e.xtant.  See  Gilbert, 
Rheinischea  Museum,  XW'III  (1873),  p.  480;  Tucker's  Introduction;  Croiset,  His- 
toire  lie  la  litterature  grecque,  III',  p.  173. 


THE   IDLE   ACTOR  IN   .ESCHYLUS  1 5 

sees  the  king's  party  approaching,  and  afterward  the  ship,  and  on  these 
same  steps  the  chorus  sits.^°  The  structure  must  therefore  be  of  con- 
siderable size,  even  if  the  chorus  consists  of  only  twelve,  and  it  is  evidently 
not  the  altar  of  Dionysus  in  the  center  of  the  orchestra,  but  a  temporary 
erection  at  the  edge  of  the  circle.  ^^ 

The  play  opens  with  the  entrance  of  the  chorus  through  one  of  the  side 
passages.  It  would  seem  that  Danaus  comes  with  them;  for  no  reason  is 
given  for  his  remaining  behind,  whereas  elsewhere  he  never  leaves  them 
except  for  some  express  purpose.  Further,  it  is  carefully  arranged  that  he 
shall  march  out  with  his  daughters  at  the  end,  and  this  suggests  a  similar 
effect  at  the  beginning.  Again,  when  he  begins  to  speak  after  the  ode, 
we  find  that  he  is  upon  the  "mound"  or  altar  (189)  and  has  perceived 
the  approach  of  the  king.  Apparently  he  enters  with  the  chorus  by  the 
parodos  and  goes  at  once  to  the  altar,  while  they  take  their  position  in  the 
orchestra  for  the  ode.     This  leaves  him  idle  during  a  passage  of  175  lines. ^^ 

After  a  short  scene,  in  which  Danaus  calls  the  chorus  to  the  altar,  the 
king  appears,  and  during  the  long  scene  which  follows  (the  most  important 
in  the  play)  Danaus  is  entirely  idle.  It  is  noticeable  that  he  seems  to  drop 
from  the  mind  of  the  poet  himself,  for  the  king  refers  to  the  suppliants  as 
a  band  of  women  (237),  and  he  is  mentioned  only  when  the  genealogy  brings 
him  inevitably  to  notice  (3 18). ^3  When  the  scene  is  over,  he  is  addressed  by 
the  king,  but  it  is  only  to  get  him  out  of  the  way  for  the  stasimon.  The 
device  is  a  transparent  one,  for  the  pretext  on  which  he  is  removed  is 
forced  (480  ff.). 

2°  Cf.  Capps,  "The  Stage  in  the  Greek  Theatre  according  to  the  Extant  Dramas," 
Transactions  of  the  American  Philological  Association,  XXII  (1891),  pp.  36  and  70!. 
The  references  are  to  the  Teubner  texts  (/^schylus,  Weil,  1891;  Sophocles,  Dindorf, 
1889;    Euripides,  Nauck,  1891). 

21  See  Bodensteiner,  loc.  cit.,  p.  648;  Bethe,  op.  cit.,  pp.  90  ff.,  95  ff.  (Bethe, 
however,  beUeves  the  erection  to  be  the  dressing-booth);  Dorpfeld-Reisch,  op.  cit., 
pp.  195  f.  For  the  old  view  see  Schonborn,  Skene  der  Hellenen,  pp.  284  f.,  and  Tucker's 
Introduction. 

"  Capps,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  22  f.  Tucker  (Introduction)  thinks  that  Danaus  appears 
after  the  ode.     Bodentseiner  (p.  709)  regards  it  as  uncertain. 

23  Maurice  Croiset  ("Le  second  acteur  chez  Eschyle,"  Memoires  presentes  4 
r Academic  des  inscriptions,  X,  pp.  193  ff.)  explains  such  cases  by  saying  that  the  part 
of  the  deuteragonist  is  still  undeveloped.  This  is  clearly  inexact,  for  here  the  deuterag- 
onist  speaks  and  the  protagonist  is  silent.  It  is  noticeable  that  most  of  the  cases  of 
neglect  in  ^Eschylus  affect  the  protagonist.  Richter  {Dramaturgic  des  Aischylos, 
p.  122)  says  with  reference  to  a  later  scene  that  if  /Eschylus  had  had  three  actors  he 
would  have  made  Danaus  enter  with  the  king  (so  Gilbert,  loc.  cit.),  forgetting  that  in 
this  scene  the  poet  is  unable  to  keep  two  actors  employed.  "  Auffallendcrweise "  is 
Richter's  only  comment  on  this  case  (p.  112). 


1 6  THE   IDLE   ACTOR   IN   .ESCHYLUS 

The  king  being  likewise  got  out  of  the  way  and  the  chorus  brought 
out  into  the  orchestra  (in  defiance  of  all  probability),  the  stasimon  is 
rendered.  Danaus  then  enters  and  announces  the  resolution  of  the  people 
to  protect  them,  and,  no  further  pretext  being  at  hand  for  removing  him,  he 
is  left  on  the  scene  during  the  next  ode.  Here,  as  at  the  beginning  of  the 
play,  he  stands  upon  the  altar  steps,  and  immediately  after  the  song  he 
announces  the  approach  of  the  pursuing  ship.  His  withdrawal  to  get  aid 
leaves  the  chorus  free  for  another  stasimon.  After  the  scene  between 
king  and  herald,  he  is  called  in  to  accompany  his  daughters  to  the  town, 
and,  having  exhorted  them  to  prudence,  marches  out  with  them  while 
they  sing.  The  exodus  consists  of  57  lines,  and  as  Danaus  has  no  part  in 
the  song,  this  must  be  added  to  the  passages  in  which  he  is  disregarded. ^^ 

It  thus  appears  that  the  protagonist,  in  the  character  of  Danaus,  is 
left  idle  upon  the  scene  for  175  +  246  +  85+  ?  lines,  or  just  about  half  the 
piece.  Nowhere  is  any  effect  intended  by  the  poet.^s  The  importance  of 
the  chorus  gives  it  the  lion's  share  of  dialogue  as  well  as  of  hxic  parts;  the 
conventional  preference  for  two-part  dialogue  excludes  Danaus  from  the 
chief  scene;  and,  finally,  the  inconvenient  theater  makes  it  impossible  to 
get  him  out  of  the  way  as  often  as  is  desired.  Had  there  been  a  temple 
in  the  background,  or  a  palace,  the  old  man  might  have  withdrawn  at 
frequent  intervals  into  that.  But  the  town  Hes  at  a  distance,  and  only  an 
important  errand  can  take  him  thither. 

Even  more  distinct  is  the  influence  of  the  crude  theater  in  the  Persians. 
Had  there  been  a  palace  in  the  background,  the  play  would  have  run  as 
smoothly  as  the  Agamemnon.  As  it  is,  the  characters  (except  Darius) 
must  come  from  and  go  to  a  distance;  and  the  moti\-ing  is  labored.  The 
exact  arrangement  of  the  scene  has  been  a  matter  of  much  dispute,  but  it 
is  now  generally  agreed  that  there  is  but  one  structiu-e  visible.  This  was 
of  course  the  temporary  erection  in  the  background,  and  it  seems  to  have 
represented  throughout  the  play  the  tomb  of  Darius.  Wilamowitz  ^^  has 
argued  for  an  imagined  scene-change,  the  same  setting  representing  suc- 
cessively the  council-house,  tomb,  and  road  outside  the  town.  But,  to 
say  nothing  of  the  improbabihty  of  such  an  imagined  shifting  with  so  little 
to  indicate  it,  we  have  direct  evidence  that  the  poet  regarded  at  least  the 

»4  The  lini's  have  hrrn  variously  assigned,  but  Danaus  seems  clearly  not  to  take 
part.  Capps  (p.  15)  suggests  that  Danaus's  silence  is  due  to  his  being  at  the  head 
of  the  procession,  and  hence  being  the  first  to  disappear;  but  cf.  the  exodus  of  the 
Persians. 

»s  These  notable  instances  in  the  Suppliiints  are  not  mentioned  by  Girard. 

>6"Dic  Perscr  des  Aischylos,"  Hermes,  XXXII  (1897),  pp.  382-9S. 


THE   IDLE    ACTOR   IN   ^SCHYLUS  1 7 

beginning  and  middle  of  the  play  as  having  the  same  scene.  On  her 
first  departure  to  procure  the  libations,  the  queen  says:  ij$<a  XafSovcra 
TTcXavov  ii  oLKiov  e/Awv  (524);  i.  e.,  she  is  to  return  to  the  same  spot  to 
make  the  offering  to  Darius.  If  the  first  and  second  parts  have  the  same 
scene,  of  course  the  third  has  also,  since  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  Xerxes's 
meeting  the  chorus  in  the  vicinity  of  the  tomb.  The  only  real  difficulty 
is  in  the  passage  140  ff.,  where  the  elders,  after  the  opening  ode,  propose  to 
hold  a  meeting  t68'  ive^ofxevoL  oreyos  dpx'nov.  But  it  is  easier  to  suppose 
either  that  they  intend  sitting  on  the  steps  of  the  tomb,  or  that  they  are 
referring  to  a  building  supposed  to  lie  just  outside  the  scene,  than  to 
believe  that  the  same  structure  is  pointed  out  to  the  audience  as  a  senate- 
house  and  later  is  found  to  be  the  tomb  of  Darius.  ^ 7 

The  scene  is  thus  not  essentially  different  from  that  in  the  Suppliants. 
The  altar  has  merely  become  a  tomb.  It  is  true  that  the  queen  comes  from, 
and  retires  to,  her  palace,  but  the  palace  being  at  a  distance,  it  is  hard  for  the 
poet  to  invent  reasons  for  her  going.  Further,  the  chorus,  though  not 
now  an  important  element  in  the  story,  must  take  part  in  each  conversa- 
tion.    Accordingly,  Atossa  is  several  times  neglected. ^^ 

The  first  instance  is  at  249-89.  The  messenger  at  his  first  appearance, 
coming  from  the  parodos,  meets  the  chorus  in  the  orchestra  before  he 
approaches  the  queen.  It  is  easy  to  understand  that  the  old  convention, 
by  which  an  actor  addressed  the  chorus,  would  be  especially  strong  at  the 
first  appearance  of  a  messenger  with  important  tidings.  He  accordingly 
converses  with  them,  and  the  queen  is  unnoticed  for  forty  Hnes.  We  have 
a  regular  scheme  of  two-line  speeches  by  the  messenger,  interspersed  with 
strophes  and  antistrophes  by  the  chorus.  Atossa  would  have  disturbed 
this  neat  balance  had  she  spoken.  That  the  poet  felt  the  awkwardness 
is  shown  by  Atossa's  first  words,  in  which  she  apologizes  for  her  silence: 

27  C/.  the  hypothesis  of  the  play;  Todt,  "Noch  einmal  die  Biihne  des  Aischylos," 
Philologus,  XLVIII  (1889),  pp.  515  ff.;  Bodensteiner,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  648  f.,  673  ff.; 
Bethe,  op.  cit.,  pp.  92  ff.;  Dorpfeld-Reisch,  op.  cit.,  pp.  196  f.  For  the  old  theory  of 
a  palace  background  see  Schonborn,  op.  cit.,  pp.  igi  ff. ;  Oemichen,  Bilhnenwesen, 
p.  185  (c/.  Bodensteiner,  p.  648);  A.  Miiller,  Biihnenalterthiimer,  pp.  113  and  116. 
Miiller  later  modified  his  view  (see  Philologus,  Suppl.  VI  (1891-93),  p.  16,  note). 
Richter  {Dramaturgic,  pp.  103  ff.)  is  unable  to  decide.  Cf.  Jurenka,  "Scenisrhes  zu 
^schylus'  Persern,"  Wiener  Studieji,  XXIII  (1901),  pp.  213-25. 

28  The  essential  parts  of  the  story  are  four:  (i)  the  queen  tells  her  dream  and 
her  fears  for  her  son;  (2)  the  messenger  reports  the  calamity  at  Salamis;  (3)  the  spirit 
of  Darius  is  summoned  to  give  counsel;  (4)  Xer.xes  appears,  and  the  chorus  join 
him  in  lamentation.  The  disturbing  element,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  dialogue, 
is  the  presence  of  the  queen  in  parts  2  and  3. 


1 8  THE    IDLE    ACTOR   IN    ^SCHYLUS 

(Tiyoi  TToAat  Svarrjvo';  iKTreir\€yfj.€vrj 
KOKOi;  •    vTTCp^aAAci  yap  rjSe  crvfi<f>opd, 
TO  p-'J/TC  Ac'cui  /liT/r'  ipoiTTJcrai  Tzadrj.'^ 

During  the  second  stasimon,  also,  she  is  present  and  takes  no  part,  but 
here  a  special  device  does  away  with  the  awkwardness:  she  pours  the 
libations,  and  the  ode  is  an  invocation  to  the  dead.  This  is  the  first  of 
several  cases  in  which  an  actor,  present  during  an  ode,  is  given  some 
employment  which  prevents  his  being  altogether  idle.  It  is  of  course 
possible  that  in  other  cases,  where  no  occupation  is  indicated  in  the  te.xt, 
the  actor  could  invent  "busine.ss,"  as  on  the  modem  stage;  for  example, 
Danaus  in  the  Siipplinnts,  in  the  first  two  periods  of  silence,  may  have 
occupied  himself  in  intent  and  anxious  watching  seaward  from  the  steps 
of  the  altar.  But  the  simplicity  and  dignity  of  an  .^schylean  tragedy 
must  have  made  this  of  little  practical  use. 3° 

On  the  first  appearance  of  Darius  we  have  another  case  similar  to  that 
at  the  arrival  of  the  messenger.  Darius  calls  upon  the  chorus  to  explain 
why  he  is  summoned ;  they  are  too  full  of  awe  to  reply,  and  he  turns  to  Atossa. 
The  first  appeal  is  evidently  in  deference  to  the  old  convention,  and  the 
later  change  to  Al^.ssa  shows  the  poet's  growing  feeling  for  dialogue  between 
actors.  Atossa  is  thus  neglected  for  twenty-three  lines  (681-703),  though 
she  is  nearer  the  tomb  than  the  chorus  and  Darius  sees  her  almost  at  the 
start  (684). 3' 

Again,  after  a  dialogue  with  the  queen,  Darius  turns  to  the  chorus,  and 
Atossa  is  idle  for  forty-five  lines  (787-831).  This  alternation  is  an 
attempt  to  keep  all  three  in  play,  and  it  is  certainly  an  improvement  on 
the  total  neglect  of  Danaus  in  the  chief  scene  of  the  Suppliants.  But  it  is 
very  far  from  being  a  sustained  conversation  among  the  three. 3» 

'9  MasquiTay,  Theorie  des  jormes  lyriques  de  la  tragedie  grecque,  pp.  135  f.,  com- 
ments on  the  dramatic  cfTcct,  but  docs  not  analyze  the  cause.  So  Girard,  he.  cit., 
p.  iiq:  "Atossa  reste  silencieuse,  comme  ecras^e  sous  le  poids  du  malhcur." 
Prickard  (note  on  290)  explains  as  due  to  the  queen's  dignity. 

30  The  actors  of  the  time,  it  must  be  remembered,  were  little  advanced  beyond  the 
stage  of  amateurs,  and  could  not  bo  expected  to  furnish  much  by-play.  Acting  was 
not  definitely  recognized  as  a  profession  until  the  establishment  by  the  state  of  the 
tragic  actors'  contest  at  the  Dionysia  in  the  year  450. 49.  See  CIA,  II,  971,  as 
reconstructed  by  Capps,  Introduction  of  Comedy  into  the  City  Dionysia.  And  on  the 
exact  dale  of  the  first  actors'  contest  see  ibid.,  p.  22,  note  62. 

31  Jurenka,  lac.  cit.,  p.  213,  suggests  that  Darius  does  not  at  first  see  Atossa,  because 
she  stands  so  close  to  the  tomb  as  to  be  really  beneath  him.  It  is  difficult  to  imagine 
the  poet  composing  the  scene  with  such  considerations  in  mind. 

J'  It  has  often  been  noticed  as  strange  that  Atossa  is  not  present  in  the  l.isl  scene, 
and  variously  explained   (see   Maurice  Croiset,  loc.  cit.,  and  Wilamowitz,  /';>  Pcrser 


THE    IDLE    ACTOR   IN    .ESCHYLUS  1 9 

In  the  Septem  play,  although  the  setting  is  as  primitive  as  ever,  a 
number  of  circumstances  make  the  management  of  the  actors  easier,  and 
there  is  but  one  case  of  the  idle  actor.  In  the  matter  of  the  setting,  it  is 
interesting  to  observe  hov^^  strong  was  the  influence  of  convention.  Accus- 
tomed to  an  altar  as  the  sole  or  most  important  piece  of  scenery,  the  poet 
manages  to  introduce  one  here  and  to  make  it  the  resort  of  suppliants, 
though  such  a  scene  is  not  essential  to  the  story.  There  is  no  evidence 
for  other  scenery,  for  Trvpyots  aTreiXet  roto-Se  (549)  and  similar  references 
to  the  fortifications  may  easily  have  been  uttered  without  such  being  in 
sight.  As  in  the  Suppliants,  there  are  images  of  the  gods  (94  ff .,  185,  21 1  f., 
219  f.,  265),  and  the  chorus  of  maidens  flee  to  them  for  protection  (96  ff.) 
and  are  sent  back  to  the  orchestra  for  a  stasimon  (265  f.).  There  is  no 
clear  indication  that  an  actor  mounts  the  altar  steps,  but  Eteocles's  speech 
to  the  army  (1-38)  may  have  been  delivered  from  that  elevation.  What 
is  of  chief  importance  here  is  that  there  is  certainly  no  palace  background. 33 

The  setting  is  thus  identical  with  that  in  the  Suppliants,  but  the  nature 
of  the  plot  gives  several  advantages  for  the  management  of  the  actors. 
In  the  first  place,  the  chorus  here  is  not  the  virtual  protagonist.  Its  con- 
nection with  the  story  is  loose — so  much  so  that  the  poet  has  great  difficulty 
in  keeping  it  occupied.  This  difficulty  appears  in  the  first  episode  (181- 
286),  where  the  only  material  at  hand  for  the  scene  is  the  impatience 
of  Eteocles  at  the  outcry  of  the  girls,  and  in  the  long  scene  between  Eteocles 
and  the  messenger,  in  which  their  part  is  merely  a  few  words  of  comment 
after  the  sending  of  each  champion.  With  a  chorus  so  reduced  in  impor- 
tance it  was  of  course  easier  to  keep  the  actors  employed. 

A  second  advantage  lies  in  the  fact  that  there  is  but  one  important 
character,  Eteocles.  He  can  speak  to  the  soldiers,  to  the  chorus,  or  to  the 
messenger,  without  danger  of  being  left  idle  through  the  participation  of 
other  persons.  Nor  is  the  minor  personage,  the  messenger,  liable  to  be 
thus  neglected,  for  messengers  regularly  depart  unnoticed  when  their 
message  is  delivered. 

A  third  advantage  arises  directly  from  the  situation.  The  scene  is  the 
citadel  of  a  besieged  city,  and  the  characters  are  warriors  engaged  in  the 

des  Aischylos,  pp.  386  f.  and  note);  but  the  chief  reason  (that  she  would  have  dis- 
turbed the  balance  of  one  to  one)  has  scarcely  been  noticed.  ^Eschylus  was  doubtless 
influenced  here  by  the  traditions  of  the  one-actor  period,  and  particularly  by  the 
Phcenissa  of  Phrynichus. 

33  See  Todt,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  518  ff.;  Capps,  loc.  cit.,  p.  37;  Bodensteincr,  loc.  cit., 
pp.  649  f.;  Bethe,  op.  cit.,  p.  94;  Dorpfeld-Reisch,  op.  cit.,  pp.  197  f.  For  the  old 
theory  of  a  palace  background  see  Schonborn,  op.  cit.,  pp.  125  ff. 


20  THE  IDLE   ACTOR   IN  .ESCHYLUS 

defense.  In  such  circumstances,  exits  and  entrances  are  almost  as  easily 
motived  as  if  a  building  stood  in  the  background. 

In  one  case,  however,  Eteocles  is  left  idle — namely,  during  the  parodos. 
He  has  dismissed  the  soldiers,  the  messenger  has  made  his  report  and  gone, 
and  Eteocles  is  praying  to  the  gods,  when  the  chorus  rush  in.  They  are 
full  of  terror  at  the  prospect  of  an  attack  on  the  city,  and  their  lamentations 
constitute  the  parodos — a  passage  of  a  hundred  Hnes.  Eteocles  is  silent 
and  unnoticed  throughout.  It  has  been  assumed  by  several  editors  34  that 
he  withdraws  without  remark  just  before  the  ode  and  returns  at  the  close. 
If  this  were  so,  the  case  would  be  unique  in  the  earUer  plays.  Nowhere 
else  in  the  plays  before  the  introduction  of  a  back-scene  does  an  important 
character,  or  indeed  any  character,  depart  and  return  again  without  a 
motive.     Let  us  see  what  evidence  there  is  for  this  case. 

The  messenger  has  urged  Eteocles  to  appoint  defenders  for  the  gates 
as  soon  as  possible  (57  f.),  and  if  he  goes  at  this  point,  it  must  be  for  that 
purpose.  But  it  appears  after  the  ode  and  his  long  argument  with  the 
chorus  that  he  has  not  yet  accompUshed  the  task,  for  he  says  (282  ff.) 
eyo)  8'  iirdpxov<:35  ....  rd^o}  fioXwv.  The  errand  is  thus  used  as  a  pre- 
te.xt  for  removing  him  for  the  first  stasimon.  If  /Eschylus  had  meant 
that  the  task  was  begun  on  the  former  occasion  and  interrupted,  this 
would  have  been  indicated  here. 

We  have,  then,  one  period  of  idleness  for  the  protagonist,  and  this  due 
to  the  lack  of  a  pretext  for  removing  him.  Later  he  goes  to  appoint  the 
champions,  and  again  to  the  battle;  more  than  this  the  poet  could  not  do 
without  inventing  a  pretext  for  his  departure  that  would  have  been  more 
awkward  than  his  presence  without  occupation. ^^ 

34  As  Palcy,  Vcrrall,  Flagg.     Girard  docs  not  notice  this  instance  in  the  Septem. 

35  Canter's  conjecture  for  iir^  Avdpas. 

36  The  latter  part  of  the  play  is  probably  a  later  addition.  It  is  so  inappropriate 
to  the  end  of  a  trilogy  that  Welcker  and  K.  O.  Miiller  (before  the  finding  of  the  didas- 
calia)  maintained  that  this  could  not  have  been  the  final  play  of  a  scries.  The  scene  is 
doubtless  an  imitation  of  Sophocles,  with  whose  play  in  mind  the  spectators  could 
complete  the  story  for  themselves.  Weil  uses  the  long  silence  of  the  sisters  as  an 
argument  against  authenticity;  but  we  must  acknowledge,  with  Girard,  that  this 
objection  has  little  weight  in  an  early  play  of  /Eschylus.  See  Bergk,  Griechische 
Littcriilurgrsfhichte,  III,  pp.  303  f. ;  Weil,  "Traces  de  remaniement  dans  Eschyle," 
Revue  dts  eludes  grecquts,  I  (188S),  pp.  17  fT.;  Wilamowitz,  "  Die  Biihne  des  .Aischylos," 
Hermes,  XXI  (1886),  p.  606,  note  3.  The  authenticity  of  the  passage  is  defended  by 
Richter,  op.  cil.,  pp.  41  fT.,  and  accepted  by  Girard,  loc.  cit.  (last  article),  p.  120.  The 
latest  discus-sion  of  the  question  is  by  Wilamowitz,  "Drei  Schlussscenen  griechischer 
Dramen,"  SitzungsbericlUe  d.  k.  preuss.  Akad.  d.  Wissenschajtcn,  philos-hist.  Klasse, 
XXI  (1903),  pp.  1-15.  He  cuts  out  vss.  861-73  ^"*i  1005 -end,  and  gives  the  inter- 
vening ode  to  the  chorus.     His  argumentation  seems  to  me  conclusive. 


THE   IDLE   ACTOR  IN   .ESCHYLUS  21 

Until  something  like  agreement  is  reached  as  to  the  history  of  the  text 
of  the  Protnethetis,  any  consideration  of  it  from  a  technical  standpoint 
must  be  purely  tentative.  The  arguments  for  a  revision,  while  not  conclu- 
sive, have  made  it  necessary  to  regard  that  as  a  distinct  possibility. 3?  And 
even  if  we  have  the  play  in  its  original  form,  there  is  still  the  uncertainty 
of  date.  The  combination  of  early  and  late  traits  is  at  first  disconcerting, 
but  a  careful  weighing  of  the  evidence  on  both  sides  certainly  gives  the 
impression  that  in  the  more  essential  matters  the  play  belongs  to 
^schylus's  earlier  style.  That  so  exalted  a  theme  is  combined  wdth  so 
rambhng  a  style,  so  episodical  a  plot,  and  so  much  geographical  digression, 
surely  shows  the  poet  of  the  Septem  rather  than  the  poet  of  the  Oresteia. 

The  late  characteristics  must  then  be  explained  away  or  attributed  to 
revision.  The  third  actor,  if  employed  at  all,  appears  in  only  one  scene, 
and  may  be  regarded  as  an  experiment  which  foreshadowed  the  later 
usage.  As  to  the  monodies  by  an  actor,  we  have  not  sufficient  evidence 
to  assert  that  ^schylus  might  not  have  introduced  them  on  occasion,  even 
at  an  early  period.  The  brevity  of  the  choral  parts  may  be  due  simply 
to  the  unimportance  of  the  chorus  and  the  supreme  interest  of  the  central 
figure. 38  The  same  factors  may  have  influenced  the  metrical  construction 
of  these  parts,  for  the  consciousness  that  he  was  abbreviating  them  would 
naturally  lead  the  poet  to  disregard  many  conventions.  As  to  the  elaborate 
machinery,  there  is  not  a  passage  in  which  its  use  can  be  absolutely  proved 
from  the  text,  unless  it  be  the  closing  scene — and  here  the  revision  theory 
is  most  tempting.  Why  should  Prometheus  sink  into  the  earth,  w^hen  he  is 
required  to  be  still  bound  to  the  rock  at  the  beginning  of  the  next  piece  ? 
On  the  other  hand,  Dorpfeld's  researches  in  the  theater  of  Dionysus  have 
shown  how  easily  the  disappearance  of  Prometheus  with  the  chorus  might 
have  been  managed  by  taking  advantage  of  the  elevation  of  the  rear  part 

37  Westphal,  Prolegomena  zu  Aischylos,  pp.  6  and  8;  Rossbach-Westphal,  Metrik 
der  Griechen,  II,  p.  :!^lviii;  Bethe,  op.  cit.,  chap.  ix.  Both  Westphal  and  Bethe  lay- 
stress  on  the  actor-monody,  not  found  elsewhere  in  ^schylus,  and  Bethe  argues  alsO' 
from  inconsistencies  in  the  plot,  metrical  peculiarities,  the  use  of  machinery,  and  the 
nature  of  the  conclusion.  He  seems  to  me  to  exaggerate  all  these  difficulties,  and 
especially  to  forget  that  the  few  plays  which  we  have  from  this  period  furnish  a  totally 
inadequate  basis  for  such  generalizing.  See  also  (on  plot)  KoUsch,  "Der  Prometheus 
des  Aeschylus,"  etc.,  reviewed  by  Oberdick,  Jenaer  Litteraturzeitiing,  1876,  No.  27, 
pp.  428  f.;  (on  metre)  Wecklein's  Introduction  (pp.  25  fl.  of  English  edition);  Kramer, 
Pro?netheum  vinctum  esse  jahulam  correctam,  pp.  34  ff.,  39;  Heidler,  De  compositione 
metrica  Promethei  fabiUae  Aeschyleae  cap.  iv;  Oberdick,  Wochenschrift  fiir  klassische 
Philologie,  V  (1888),  cols.  i3iof. ;  Masqueray,  op.  cit.,  pp.  34  if.,  165,  270  f.  Weil 
(loc.  cit.,  pp.  21  ff.)  thinks  the  e\'idence  insufficient. 

38  C}.  Masqueray,  op.  cit.,  p.  79. 


22  THE   IDLE   ACTOR   IN   ^SCHYLUS 

of  the  orchestra  above  the  level  of  the  ground  in  front  of  the  temple  of 
Dionysus.  It  has  been  well  said  that  the  distinct  and  reiterated  descrip- 
tions of  the  chorus's  wagon  and  Oceanus's  steed  as  flying  may  be  due  to 
the  fact  that  they  </o  not  lly;  consequently  the  imagination  is  helped  out 
by  verbal  description — a  well-recognized  .T^schylean  device. 39 

A  very  simple  setting  is  in  reality  sufficient  on  this  view  of  the  case. 
The  temporar}'  erection  at  the  edge  of  the  orchestra  now  represents  a  rock, 
and  nothing  more  is  necessary.  All  entrances  and  e.xits  are  made  through 
the  parodoi."" 

We  come,  then,  to  a  consideration  of  the  management  of  the  actors. 
The  situation  is  of  course  e.xceptional — Prometheus  must  remain  through- 
out; but  in  various  ways  the  awkwardness  of  his  presence  during  choral 
passages  is  rendered  less  noticeable.  Thus  the  parodos  takes  the  form  of 
a  kommos,  he  and  the  chorus  conversing  in  much  the  same  strain  as  in 
the  trimeters  that  follow.  The  first  stasimon  is  chiefly  addressed  to  Pro- 
metheus, and  after  it  he  apologizes  for  his  silence  as  Atossa  does  (436  ff.). 
The  second  stasimon  begins  with  general  reflections,  but  the  chorus  quickly 
turns  to  address  the  central  figure.  The  third  stasimon  is  the  only  lyric 
pa.ssage  in  which  Prometheus  is  entirely  neglected,  and  it  is  verj'  short 
(887-906).  The  exodus,  like  the  parodos,  is  in  the  form  of  a  kommos. 
Except  for  Prometheus,  the  play  has  the  early  episodical  character, 
each  scene  beginning  with  the  entrance  of  a  new  character  and  ending  with 
his  departure,  so  that  none  remains  through  the  odes. 

In  the  dialogue  passages  there  is  shown  the  same  desire  to  avoid  the 
neglect  of  an  actor,  and  in  general  the  same  success.  Leaving  out  of 
sight  for  the  moment  the  opening  scene,  we  find  that  neither  Prometheus 
nor  a  subordinate  character  is  left  idle  at  any  point.  Prometheus  converses 
successively  with  the  chorus,  with  Oceanus,  with  the  chorus  again,  with 
lo,  and  with  Hermes.  Generally  the  chorus  is  neglected,  but  in  the  lo- 
scene  great  efforts  are  made  to  keep  it  in  play,  and  we  see  how  difficult 
for  the  poet  was  a  three-cornered  dialogue.  The  poet  was  accustomed 
to  cope  with  the  problem  of  the  immovable  chorus;  the  addition  of  an 
immovable  actor   raised    a    problem    of   exceptional    difl"iculty.      It   was 

39  Cf.  Bodcnstciner,  he.  cit.,  pp.  665  f. ;  Capps,  "Stage  in  the  Greek  Theatre," 
pp.  19  f. 

*°Cf.  C.  Fr.  Miiller,  liymnasialprograni,  Stade,  Austria,  1S71,  rovieweil  in 
Philologisciier  Anzeiger,  III  (1871),  pp.  318  ff.;  Wecklein's  Introductinn;  Capps, 
"Stage  in  the  Greek  Theatre,"  pp.  $q  f.;  Bethc,  op.  cit.,  pp.  94  f.;  Todt,  loc.  cit.,  pp. 
520  fl.;  Dbrpfeld-Reisch,  op.  cit.,  pp.  igS  f.,  216  ff.  Reisch's  "Felzweg"  for  the 
chorus  seems  unnecessary,  for  w4Sot  5i  pacai  (vs.  272)  may  mean  simply  "alight," 
and  aTv<t>\ov  irirpai  (748)  may  refer  to  the  whole  orchestra. 


THE    IDLE    ACTOR   IN    ^SCHYLUS  23 

inevitable  that  the  poet  should  find  a  partial  solution  in  the  reduction  of 
the  part  of  the  chorus,  both  as  to  the  amount  of  lyric  assigned  to  it  and 
as  to  its  participation  in  the  dialogue. 

It  has  seemed  worth  while  to  show  in  some  detail  the  care  with  which 
the  actors  are  in  general  kept  occupied,  because  in  this  way  the  pecuhar 
nature  of  the  first  scene  is  emphasized  by  contrast.  In  this  scene  of  eighty- 
seven  lines,  during  which  Prometheus  is  nailed  to  the  rock,  he  utters  not 
a  word;  the  conversation  is  between  Hephaestus  and  Cratos.  Was  this 
done  deliberately  for  artistic  efifect,  as  is  often  said,  or  was  it  the  result  of 
practical  limitations  ?  The  question  seems  decided  by  the  fact  that 
neither  in  the  scene  itself  nor  in  the  monologue  that  follows  is  there  any 
reference  to  this  silence  as  a  sign  of  Prometheus 's  pride.  To  plan  such 
an  effect  and  carry  it  out  without  calling  attention  to  it  by  expHcit  mention 
might  accord  well  enough  with  modern  methods,  but  is  absolutely  un- 
yEschylean,  not  to  say  un- Greek. 

There  will  always  be  a  certain  number  of  critics  who  will  regard  it  as 
profanation  to  seek  practical  reasons  for  things  where  artistic  work  is 
concerned.  But  it  is  plainly  illogical  to  admit  a  practical  cause  in  one 
case  and  deny  it  in  another  merely  because  the  same  phenomenon  has 
now  an  artistic  significance.  If  Danaus,  Atossa,  and  Eteocles  are  left  idle 
only  when  the  poet  could  not  keep  them  employed,  why  not  Prometheus 
also? 

Just  what  the  difficulty  was  in  this  case  cannot  be  told  with  certainty 
until  the  vexed  question  is  decided  whether  we  have  here  two  actors  or 
three.  If  the  former  is  true,  and  Prometheus  is  represented  by  a  lay 
figure,  the  reason  is  not  difficult  to  see.  Cratos  and  Bia  are  needed  to 
carry  the  figure  in,  and  the  part  of  Cratos  is  given  to  an  actor  that  conver- 
sation may  begin  immediately  on  their  appearance.  Prometheus  of 
course  cannot  speak  until  the  scene  is  ended  and  the  protagonist  has  taken 
up  his  position  behind  the  figure. 

It  is  true  that  the  lay-figure  theory  has  been  a  favorite  object  of  ridicule 
with  the  critics  who  pride  themselves  on  taking  a  common-sense  view  of 
such  questions;  but  the  common-sense  attitude  is  too  apt  to  involve  the 
ignoring  of  conditions.  In  the  great  theater  of  Dionysus  a  wooden  Pro- 
metheus, nude,  fettered,  and  of  superhuman  size,  may  well  have  been 
more  impressive  than  a  masked  and  padded  actor  in  the  same  position. 4» 

4'  The  lay-figure  theory  was  first  suggested  by  Welcker,  Trilogie,  p.  30,  and  has 
been  approved  by  G.  Hermann,  Opusc,  II,  p.  146;  K.  F.  Hermann,  De  distrib.,  pp. 
623,  o;  Wieseler,  Gott.  prorect.  Program,  1866,  p.  5;  A.  Miiller,  Philologus,  XXIII 
(1866),  pp.  5195.,  XXXV,  p.  312;    Philologischer  Anzeiger,  III,  p.  319;    Wecklein, 


24  THE   IDLE   ACTOR   IN   iESCHYLUS 

On  the  other  side  it  is  urged  (i)  that  the  idea  of  a  lay- figure  was  first 
suggested  solely  because  the  Prometheus  was  supposed  to  belong  to  the 
two-actor  period,  a  thing  which  we  have  no  right  to  assume;  and  (2)  that 
the  ancients  nowhere  mention  the  use  of  a  lay-figure. 

But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  three  actors  were  employed,  the  reason  for 
Prometheus's  silence  is  equally  easy  to  detect.  The  third  actor  was  an 
experiment,  an  innovation,  and  the  convention  of  two-part  dialogue  could 
not  be  overcome.  Three  actors  might  appear  at  once,  but  a  general  con- 
versation among  them  was  against  all  the  traditions  of  the  drama.  The 
writer  is  inclined,  however,  to  the  view  that  a  lay-figure  was  employed. 
In  any  event,  the  effect  upon  the  audience  was  the  same,  and  Prometheus 
must  be  reckoned  as  an  idle  actor  in  this  scene. 

The  Agamemnon  and  the  two  following  plays  are  sharply  distingmshed 
from  the  preceding  four  by  the  existence  of  a  back-scene  with  doors.  It 
is  scarcely  possible  to  overestimate  the  importance  of  such  a  change.  A 
mere  piece  of  scenery  (altar,  tomb,  or  rock)  is  of  little  assistance  in  the 
arranging  of  a  plot.  It  serves  to  indicate  the  locality  and  add  \-ividness 
to  the  action,  but  it  gives  little  help  in  motiving  the  comings  and  goings  of 
the  characters.  But  when  once  the  idea  is  grasped  of  making  the  action 
transpire  before  a  palace,  a  temple,  a  tent,  or  even  a  cave,  new  possibilities 
are  opened  for  the  drama. 

The  name  (tktjvt^  is  good  evidence  that  this  back-scene  was  not  developed 
from  the  older  setting,  but  from  the  dressing-booth.  The  altar  or  tomb 
can  never  have  been  called  o-kt^vt;.  That  word  suggests  a  real  building, 
slight  indeed,  but  meant  as  a  cover  or  protection — meant  to  contain  some- 
thing, and  not  as  a  bit  of  idle  show.  We  are  justified  in  assuming  that 
this  new  structure  on  the  edge  of  the  orchestra  was  from  the  first  a  retiring- 
place  for  the  actors — merely  the  dressing-booth  in  a  new  situation. 4^    The 

Studien  zu  Aischylos,  pp.  31  S.,  and  ed.  of  i8()6,  Introduction,  pp.  54  f.;  O.  Navarre, 
"De  I'hypoth^sc  d'un  mannequin  dans  le  Promethec  enchaine  d'Eschyle,"  Anrwles  de 
la  FacuUe  des  Leilres  de  Bordeaux,  Revue  des  itudes  anciennes,  III  (1901),  2.  The  view 
is  rejected  by  Schoemann,  Prometheus,  p.  87;  Soinmerbrodt,  Scaenica,  pp.  170  ff.; 
Girard,  loc.  cit.,  p.  123  (of  last  article),  note  5;  Croiset,  Histoire  de  la  liiteratur  grccque 
III»,  p.  176;  C.  Fr.  Muller,  loc.  cit.;  Richtcr,  op.  cit.,  pp.  50  f.;  Bcthc,  op.  cit., 
p.  180,  note;  Bodensteiner,  loc.  cit.,  p.  674.  The  arguments  for  the  view  are  summed 
up  as  follows  by  Navarre:  (i)  absence  of  any  sign  of  movement  in  Prometheus; 
(2)  his  silence  under  torture;  (3)  unnecessary  brutality,  the  iron  being  driven  through 
his  l)ody;  (4)  probability  that  only  two  actors  are  used  in  the  pilay;  (5)  arrangement 
of  the  scene,  Cratos  remaining  behind  as  if  to  give  the  other  actor  time  to  take  his 
place  behind  the  figure. 

4'  Bethe  believes  that  the  earlier  altar  or  tomb  was  likewise  the  dressing-lxwth. 
On  this  view  the  innovation  would  be  merely  a  new  use  of  the  booth,  not  a  changing 
of  its  position.     See  op.  cit.,  p.  iqo. 


THE   IDLE   ACTOR   IN   ^SCHYLUS  25 

reason  for  the  change,  then,  was  not  a  desire  for  more  elaborate  scenery, 
for  that  would  have  led  to  a  development  of  the  older  setting;  it  was  the 
need  of  a  more  convenient  place  of  withdrawal  for  the  characters.  That 
the  device  proved  satisfactory  is  shown  by  the  regularity  with  which  it  is 
henceforth  employed.  Wlien  we  reach  the  period  of  the  New  Comedy,  we 
find  that  the  ideal  of  harmony  between  the  arrangements  of  the  theater,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  requirements  of  the  drama,  on  the  other,  is  at  last 
attained;  characters  make  their  exits  freely  and  without  motiving  when 
their  presence  is  no  longer  needed  by  the  poet,  as  Leo  has  clearly  shown 
in  his  Plautinische  Forschnngen. 

The  first  ctkt/vt;  was  a  simple,  temporary  structure  of  wood  containing 
one  or  more  doors,  as  the  piece  required.  It  probably  extended  on  either 
side  as  far  as  the  parodoi,  so  that  actors  could  pass  through  or  behind  it 
unseen.  The  action  was  still  in  the  orchestra.  The  actors  changed  their 
costumes  in  the  building,  and  either  entered  directly  through  its  doors  or 
passed  around  to  the  side  and  came  in  through  a  parodos.  They  might 
also  on  occasion  appear  upon  the  roof. 43 

The  immense  advantage  of  this  new  arrangement  is  at  once  evident. 
Any  character  supposed  to  hve  in  the  building  could  now  come  and  go 
with  Uttle  or  no  motive  or  remark.  Not  being  imagined  to  have  gone  to  a 
distance,  he  might  reappear  as  quickly  as  desired. 44 

A  comparison  of  the  management  of  Atossa  in  the  Persians  and  Clyte- 
mestra  in  the  Agamemnon  will  serve  to  show  the  difference.  The  circum- 
stances of  the  two  plays  are  very  similar;  in  each  we  have  a  queen,  a  chorus 
of  elders,  an  absent  king,  a  herald  announcing  his  coming,  and  the  king's 
appearance.  In  the  older  play  the  queen  arrives  on  a  chariot  from  her 
distant  palace.  She  must  be  present  through  the  scene  with  the  herald, 
and  hence  the  difficulty  of  arranging  that  scene.  Twice  she  is  explicitly 
sent  off  on  clumsy  pretexts,  and  finally  she  does  not  meet  her  son  when 
he  appears. 

Clytemestra,  on  the  other  hand,  after  her  first  scene  with  the  chorus, 
withdraws  without  remark.  During  the  herald-scene  she  is  absent,  except 
for  a  few  moments  in  which  she  explains  why  she  need  not  hear  the  mes- 
sage. When  the  king  arrives,  he  is  received  by  the  chorus  alone,  and  only 
then  does  the  queen_ leave  her  palace  to  utter  her  greetings  without  inter- 
ference from  them. 

43  See  Wilamowitz,  "Die  Biihne  des  Aischylos,"  Hermes,  XXI,  pp.  597  ff.; 
Bodensteiner,  loc.  cit.,  p.  645;  Dorpfeld-Reisch,  op.  cit.,  pp.  199  ff.,  370  ff.,  and 
Part  V. 

44  Dorpfeld-Reisch,  op.  cit.,  pp.  201,  371  f. 


26  THE    IDLE    ACTOR    IX    -ESCHYLUS 

The  conditions  are  thus  greatly  changed  since  the  time  of  the  Suppli- 
ants. When  the  poet  now  fails  to  keep  his  characters  employed,  the  reason 
must  generally  be  sought,  not  in  the  primitive  theater,  but  in  other  condi- 
tions, often  less  tangible  and  less  easy  to  trace. 

The  movements  of  the  queen  are  now  so  easily  made  that  they  are  but 
vaguely  indicated  in  the  text,  and  at  times  it  cannot  be  told  with  certainty 
whether  she  is  present  or  not.  The  most  puzzling  case  is  in  the  parodos. 
The  anapaestic  portion  of  the  ode  concludes  with  an  address  to  the  queen: 

(TV  Se,   Ti'v8ap€a> 

dvyartp,  /iacrt'Atta  KXvTai/xrjcrTpa, 

Tt  \pio^  ;    TL  viov  ;    k.t.K.  (S3- 103). 

One  naturally  expects  her  to  reply  forthwith,  but  instead  we  have  a  hnric 
passage  of  160  lines,  after  which  she  is  again  addressed  and  finally  speaks. 
There  is  something  grotesque  in  the  picture  of  the  queen  standing  idly  by 
all  this  time,  quite  without  reason,  and  the  detailed  description  of  the 
slaughter  of  Iphigenia  is  in  singularly  bad  taste  if  the  mother  is  present. 
It  is  more  natural  to  suppose,  either  that  she  appears  only  for  a  moment 
(as  in  the  herald-scene),  or  that  she  is  not  present  at  all  until  the  end,  the 
first  address  being  merely  an  apostrophe  made  with  lyric  freedom. ^s 

There  occurs  in  this  play,  however,  the  most  famous  case  of  the  idle 
actor  in  .^schylus — the  long  silence  of  Cassandra.  When  Agamemnon 
makes  his  triumphal  entry  on  the  chariot,  Cassandra  as  his  captive 
naturally  rides  in  another  chariot  following  him.  She  is  unnoticed,  however, 
for  168  Hnes;  then  Agamemnon  mentions  her,  but  she  is  not  addressed  for 
85  lines  more;  and  then  she  is  obstinately  silent  for  another  37  lines.  In  all 
she  is  silent  for  290  lines.  In  this  long  interval  occur  the  greeting  of  the 
chorus,  Agamemnon's  speech,  the  scene  with  Clytemestra,  and  a  stasimon. 
Much  praise  has  been  lavished  upon  this  long  silence,  as  increasing  the 
effectiveness  of  the  mystical  prophecy  which  follows,-"^  but  critics  have  uni- 
formly lost  sight  of  the  fact  that  the  greater  part  of  it  was  forced  upon  the 
poet  by  the  conditions.  Cassandra,  if  introduced  at  all,  must  enter  in  the 
train  of  the  conqueror.  She  could  not  take  part  in  the  dialogue  until  the 
greetings  were  over  and  a  stasimon  had  j)rcparcd  the  way  for  a  new 
scene.     The  skill  of  the  poet  is  shown,  not  in  inventing  the  silence  as  a 

•♦■;  The  editors  disagree.  Werklein,  Enger,  Vcrrall,  and  Gilbert  think  the  queen 
is  nuTL-ly  aj)ostro|)hi/.((i;  Hermann  says  that  she  enters  only  for  a  moment;  Klausen, 
Karsten,  Peile,  an<l  SidgNsick  make  her  remain  through  the  ode,  busy  with  the  offer- 
ings. So  Capps,  "Stage  in  the  Greek  Theatre,"  p.  23;  Bodensteiner,  loc.  cit., 
p.  731 ;  DetschetT,  Pe  tragordiarum  graecarum  conjormationc,  Sardicae  (1904),  note  loi. 
Arnoldt,  Chor  im  Agamemnon,  pp.  q  f.,  thinks  the  queen's  silence  shows  her  pride. 

46  £.  g.,  Richter,  of),  cit.,  p.   165;    Girard,  loc.  cit.,  p.   124. 


THE    IDLE    ACTOR   IN   ^SCHYLUS  27 

dramatic  device,  but  in  accepting  it  as  unavoidable  and  turning  it  to 
brilliant  effect. 47 

Cho'ephoroi. — The  Cho'ephoroi,  though  brought  out  at  the  same  time  with 
the  Agamemnon,  is  in  some  respects  strikingly  different  from  that  play. 
Whether  because  of  the  inferior  interest  of  the  subject,  or  owing  to  acci- 
dental circumstances  connected  with  its  composition  which  we  cannot  now 
trace,  the  Cho'ephoroi,  regarded  as  a  piece  of  workmanship,  is  much  less 
impressive  than  the  Agamemnon.  In  the  close-knit  structure  and  con- 
stant intensity  that  give  significance  to  every  detail,  the  play  is  somewhat 
lacking.  A  general  air  of  looseness  and  remoteness  pervades  it,  not  unlike 
what  may  be  observed  in  Shakespeare's  Macbeth  as  compared  with  Othello. 
This  appears  particularly  in  the  treatment  of  two  characters,  Electra  and 
Pylades. 

Electra  enters  with  the  chorus  (f/.  16)  and  is  silent  during  the  parodos. 
She  has  come  with  the  company  of  serving-women  to  pour  libations  on  her 
father's  grave.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  song  she  asks  their  advice  as  to 
the  prayer  she  is  to  offer.  This  period  of  silence,  like  Cassandra's  in  the 
Agamemnon,  is  really  forced  upon  the  poet  by  circumstances.  Electra 
could  not  well  remain  behind,  since  the  chorus's  entrance  would  then  be 
unmotived,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  ode  could  not  be  turned  into  a 
kommos,  for  an  elaborate  kommos  with  Orestes  is  to  occupy  a  large  part 
of  the  piece. 48 

The  neglect  with  which  Electra  is  treated  appears  more  distinctly  later. 
In  the  long  kommos,  with  its  succession  of  prayers  by  Orestes,  Electra, 
and  the  chorus,  each  party  is  of  course  left  idle  in  turn,  but  Electra  is 
neglected  more  than  either  of  the  others.  There  follows  a  scene  in  trimeters, 
the  greater  part  of  which  passes  between  Orestes  and  the  chorus  only, 
Orestes  asking  and  learning  of  them  the  reason  of  the  offering.  In  the 
scene  where  Orestes  announces  to  his  mother  his  own  supposed  death, 
there  is  a  speech  (691-99)  which  may  belong  to  either  Clytemestra  or 
Electra. 49  If  Electra  is  present,  she  is  unnoticed  by  the  other  characters 
during  the  scene.     Henceforth  she  does  not  appear  at  all. 

47  Girard,  loc.  ci/.,  pp.  1 16  f.,  describes  the  ludicrous  effect  of  Cassandra's  tragic 
mask  during  this  long  silence  when  the  play  was  produced  at  Paris.  It  is  not 
unlikely  that  in  the  original  production  the  mask  was  concealed  by  a  veil  at  this  point. 

48  Richter  {op.  ciL,  p.  215)  thinks  she  is  busy  with  the  offerings,  but  in  four  vase- 
paintings,  which  seem  to  have  been  influenced  by  this  scene,  Electra  sits  on  the  steps  of 
the  altar.     See  Huddilston,  Creek  Tragedy  in  the  Light  of  the  Vase-Paintings,  chap.  iii. 

45  Bodensteiner  {loc.  cit.,  p.  733)  thinks  Electra  is  not  present.  The  speech  is 
given  by  most  editors — as  Hermann,  Dindorf,  Paley,  Conington,  Sidgwick,  Wecklein, 
Verrall — to  Clytemestra;  Weil,  however,  and  some  others,  give  it  to  Electra — Robor- 
tellus  to  a  .servant,  Wellauer  to  one  of  the  chorus. 


28  THE    IDLE    ACTOR   IN   ^SCrnXUS 

In  Pylades  we  have  a  puzzling  phenomenon.  Apparently  he  is  always 
at  Orestes's  side,  yet  he  speaks  but  three  lines  in  the  play.  He  is  repeatedly 
referred  to  (20,  561  f.,  583  f.,  899),  but  his  only  words  are  a  reminder  to 
Orestes  of  Apollo's  command  (900-902).  Is  he  a  regular  actor,  or  a  mute 
who  is  given  a  few  words  to  speak  ?  If  the  former,  why  is  he  so  persistently 
silent;  and  if  the  latter,  why  was  the  part  not  adapted  to  a  regular  actor,  since 
without  him  the  three  actors  are  used  little,  if  at  all  ?  Whether  actor  or 
mute,  he  must  of  course  produce  the  effect  of  a  silent  actor,  since  he  must 
wear  the  costume  of  a  principal  character. 

Apparently  the  explanation  lies  in  a  variety  of  circumstances.  In  the 
first  place,  as  Wilamowitz  has  shown,  ^Eschylus  uses  Pylades,  not  because 
he  wanted  the  character,  but  because  tradition  placed  him  at  Orestes's  side, 
and  he  could  not  be  got  rid  of.  At  the  same  time,  he  did  not  choose  to 
encumber  his  play  by  the  addition  of  another  active  personality.  It  still 
remains  to  be  explained  how,  even  so,  he  could  be  willing  to  allow  this 
awkwardly  silent  figure  in  the  play. 

The  reason  seems  to  be  this:  The  sensitiveness  on  this  point  often 
shown  in  the  earlier  pieces  was  due  to  the  conspicuous  position  which  the 
actors  occcupied.  The  characters  were  few ;  often  but  a  single  one  appeared 
in  an  entire  scene.  Not  many  attendants  were  required,  and  the  scenery 
was  of  the  simplest  description.  Under  these  conditions  the  attention 
was  strongly  focused  on  the  actor.  Even  when  the  plot  did  not  require 
any  activity  on  his  part,  it  would  be  very  noticeable  if  he  were  neglected. 
Hence  the  poet  soon  learned  to  avoid  such  absurdities  as  the  long  silence 
of  Danaus  in  the  Suppliants.  For  example,  the  messenger  in  the  Septetn, 
though  a  minor  character,  is  never  left  idle  on  the  scene.  Here  the  condi- 
tions are  different.  We  have  many  characters,  an  ample  setting,  an  elabo- 
rate plot.  The  silence  of  Pylades,  though  still  awkward,  would  not  attract 
the  same  attention  as  at  an  earlier  time.s° 

Eumenidcs. — No  reader  of  ^schylus  can  fail  to  be  struck  by  the  differ- 
ence between  the  Eiimcnides  and  the  other  plays.  The  remoteness  and 
mysticism  are  replaced  by  a  matter-of-fact  tone,  and  the  drama  reads 
almost  like  a  portrayal  of  contemporary  life.  In  the  trial  scene  the  gods 
and  heroes  speak  and  act  like  Athenians  of  the  poet's  own  time.  5'   It  is  easy 

50  Vcrrall  (Introduction,  pp.  .xvii  ff.)  says  that  Pylades  is  introduced  partly  to 
explain  the  situation  (he  being  the  influential  friend  who  makes  Orestes's  schemes 
practicable),  and  partly  as  an  impressive  embodiment  of  the  divine  command.  There 
seems  .scant  evidence  in  the  play  for  either. 

S'  There  may  have  been  a  trial  scene  in  the  Diiuiiiilcs,  hut  it  was  cortaiiiiy  not 
elaborately  realistic  like  this  one.  See  Hermann,  Of>iisc.,  II,  pp.  319  IT. ;  Nauck, 
Trui^.  Cracc.  Frog.,  /Esch.,  44. 


THE   IDLE   ACTOR   IN    ^,SCHYLUS  29 

to  see  that  such  a  development  of  the  drama  was  inevitable.  The  poet 
would  be  certain  sooner  or  later  to  pass  from  mere  allusions  to  whole  scenes 
of  practical  political  import.  The  significant  thing  for  us  in  this  change  is 
its  effect  upon  the  technique.  If,  for  example,  the  ancient  authority  of  the 
court  of  the  Areopagus  is  to  be  pictured  in  a  trial-scene,  evidently  the  con- 
ventional method  of  the  drama  must  be  modified.  The  set  dialogues 
between  two  characters,  or  a  character  and  the  chorus,  will  not  be  sufficient 
for  such  a  scene.  A  considerable  number  of  persons  must  be  present,  and 
they  cannot  all  be  kept  constantly  in  play.  The  attention  will  be  fixed  on 
the  scene  as  a  whole,  rather  than  on  individual  characters.  The  poet  will 
be  forced  into  something  very  like  a  modern  ensemble  scene. 

This  is  what  we  actually  find  in  the  Eumenides.  In  the  trial  scene  the 
old  conventionalities  are  disregarded  to  an  extent  that  would  be  surprising 
if  the  reason  were  not  so  plain.  The  drama  here  comes  into  close  contact 
with  contemporary  life:  set  to  imitate  a  scene  in  the  court,  it  must  adapt 
itself  to  the  new  conditions. 5^ 

Thus  we  find  several  noticeable  periods  of  silence  in  various  characters, 
for  which  the  trial  is  mainly  responsible.  During  the  epiparodos  (244-63) 
Orestes  remains  cHnging  to  the  statue  of  Athene  {cj.  258  f.).  He  keeps 
this  position  until  the  end  of  the  trial,  being  silent  during  the  first  stasimon 
(307-96),  a  dialogue  of  39  lines  between  Athene  and  the  chorus  (397-435), 
the  second  stasimon  (490-565), ^3  the  opening  of  the  trial  (566-84),  and  the 
greater  part  of  the  trial  (614-743).  As  in  the  case  of  Cassandra  in  the 
Agamemnon,  the  silence  is  turned  to  account  at  one  point.  When  his  case 
is  about  to  be  decided,  Orestes,  after  a  silence  of  130  lines,  breaks  out  in  the 
cry :  w  $oty8'  "AttoAAov,  ttw?  dywv  Kpi6rj<T(.Tai ;  The  dramatic  effect  of  the 
appeal  must  have  been  greatly  heightened  by  the  previous  silence. 

Athene  is  silent  during  a  large  part  of  the  trial  (585-673,  711-33).  As 
presiding  officer,  she  must  listen  quietly  to  the  presentation  of  the  case. 
Apollo  also  is  neglected  while  Athene  establishes  the  court  (681-710). 

It  must  be  remembered  that  at  the  time  of  the  Oresteia  the  problem 
of  plot-building  had  been  enlarged  by  the  addition  of  the  third  actor.  It 
is  true  that  the  poet  was  under  no  compulsion  to  have  all  his  actors  visible 
at  one  time,  but  circumstances  would  occasionally  make  such  a  scene 
necessary;  and  then  the  difficulty  of  keeping  all  the  actors  employed  was 
of  course  increased.  The  cases  in  the  Oresteia  are  as  follows:  Agamem- 
non, 855-974  (Agamemnon,  Clytemestra,  Cassandra) ;  Choephoroi  (omitting 

52  There  are,  for  example,  no  songs  by  actors. 

53  Cf.   the   schohum   on   490:    ^    m^"   'AdrjvS.    atrrjXdev   evrpeirlffaL    diKaa-rds,   6   di 
'0/3c'(7T7;s  iKereiiwu  /J-ivei,  ai  5e  'Eptvijes  (ppovpomiv  OLXirbv. 


30  THE   IDLE    ACTOR    IN   .ESCH\XUS 

Pylades),  apparently  none;  Eumenides,  574-753  (Orestes,  Athene,  Apollo). 
If  these  numbers  are  compared  with  those  in  the  preceding  paragraphs, 
it  will  be  seen  that  throughout  both  passages  we  have  the  idle  actor  except 
in  Eumenides  744-53.  These  few  lines  then  are  the  only  passage  in  the 
extant  plays  of  ^schylus  in  which  three  actors  are  kept  employed  at  once. 
We  are  now  in  a  position  to  collect  the  instances  of  the  idle  actor  in  the 
extant  plays  of  /Eschylus  and  to  consider  them  together.  They  are  as 
follows : 

Suppliants:  Danaus  (protagonist)  neglected  for  175  + 246 +  85 +  (57?)  = 
563  lines. 

Persians:    Atosssa  (protagonist)  neglected  for  41  +  53  +  23  +  45  =  162  Unes. 

Septem:    Etcocles  ^protagonist)  neglected  for  103  lines. 

Proniclheus:    Prometheus  (protagonist)  neglected  for  30  +  20  =  50  lines. 

Agamemnon:    Cassandra  (dcuteragonist)  neglected  for  253  lines. 

Choephoroi:     Electra  (dcuteragonist)  neglected  for  62  +  26  +  67  =  155  lines. ^^ 

Orestes  (protagonist)  neglected  for  20  lines. 

Eumenides:  Orestes  (protagonist)  neglected  for  20  +  90  +  39  +  76+19+130 
=  374  lines. 

Athene  neglected  for  89  +  23  =  1 1 2  lines. 

Apollo  neglected  for  30  lines. 

In  all,  in  the  8,117  lines  of  the  extant  plays,  there  are  1,779  lines 
(about  22  per  cent.)  in  which  at  least  one  actor  is  neglected.  In  113  of 
these  lines,  two  actors  are  neglected. 5  5 

Of  the  causes  of  this  phenomenon,  the  most  widely  operative  is  the 
crude  theater.  We  see  its  effect  in  the  structure  of  such  a  play  as  the 
Supplianis.^^  Given  the  simple  scene,  the  poet  has  evolved  a  simple 
situation — the  suppliants  at  the  altar — and  it  is  impossible  to  remove 
Danaus  as  often  as  dramatic  propriety  requires.  So  he  stands  idly  by 
through  parodos  and  stasimon,  epi.sode  and  exodus.  The  Persians  is 
but  little  better:  no  building  being  at  hand,  the  queen  must  wait  upon  the 
scene  while  the  chorus  converses  witli  the  messenger  and  with  Darius. 
Similarly,  Eteocles  in  the  Septem,  for  lack  of  a  ])lace  of  withdrawal,  must 
stand  idle  through  the  parodos.  The  silence  of  Prometheus  also  is  perhaps 
due  to  a  material  cause — the  use  of  a  lay-figure.  In  the  Orcsteia  material 
limitations  are  less  operative,  but  their  effect  can  still  be  traced.  That 
Cassandra  should  enter  with  Agamemnon  and  be  obliged  to  wait  so  long 

54  Ii  is  dilTRult  to  sclfct  the  lines,  a.s  it  is  not  always  rU-ar  whcthi-r  Electra  is 
being  addressed  or  not. 

55  The  mutes  (Bin,  Pylades,  and  Hermes)  are  not  here  included. 

5*  And,  through  imitation,  in  later  plays,  such  as  the  Suppliunls  of  Euripides. 


THE   IDLE   ACTOR  IN   .ESCHYLUS  3 1 

seems  a  survival  of  early  stiffness,  the  possibility  .of  easy  movement  not 
yet  being  fully  grasped ;  and  Electra  need  not  have  been  so  often  neglected 
if  the  back-scene  had  been  as  freely  used  as  it  is,  for  example,  in  many  plays 
of  Euripides. 

The  effect  of  the  preference  for  dialogue  between  two  speakers  is  seen 
in  Danaus's  idleness  during  the  chief  scene  in  the  Suppliants;  in  that  of 
Atossa  in  the  two  scenes  just  mentioned;  possibly  in  that  of  Prometheus; 
certainly  in  much  of  the  neglect  of  Electra,  and  in  some  of  the  cases  in 
the  Enmenides. 

The  prominence  of  the  chorus  must  be  held  accountable  also  for  the 
chief  cases  affecting  Danaus,  Atossa,  and  Electra.  Various  incidental 
causes  (mentioned  above)  complete  the  explanation,  so  far  as  it  is  possible 
now  to  give  it. 

Now  it  appears  in  various  places  that  vEschylus  was  at  great  pains  to 
avoid  the  idle  actor.  In  Suppliants,  480  ff.,  Danaus  is  sent  to  the  city  on 
a  most  artificial  pretext,  merely  to  have  him  out  of  the  way  for  the  first 
stasimon;  and  in  the  same  play,  968,  the  king  goes  before  Danaus  returns, 
though  he  might  as  well  have  remained  till  the  end,  had  the  poet  been 
able  to  employ  him.  Atossa's  apology  for  her  silence  (290  ff.)  is  evidence 
in  the  same  direction,  and  so  are  her  poorly  motived  exits  at  vss.  523  and 
849,  just  before  choral  passages. 57  The  same  thing  appears  in  the  care 
taken  to  avoid  neglect  of  Prometheus — the  turning  of  the  parodos  into  a 
kommos,  the  addressing  of  most  of  the  odes  to  him,  and  his  careful  expla- 
nation of  his  silence  at  vs.  436.  The  management  of  Ciytemestra  in  the 
Agamemnon,  which  by  keeping  her  off  the  scene  avoids  all  awkwardness 
on  the  arrival  of  the  messenger  and  of  Agamemnon,  shows  clearly  that 
the  presence  of  Atossa  in  the  similar  scenes  in  the  Persians  would  have 
been  avoided  if  it  had  been  possible,  without  forcing  a  motive  for  her 
exit,  to  remove  her  easily  from  the  scene  of  action. 

The  final  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  an  examination  of  the  seven 
extant  plays  of  ^schylus  is  that,  while  there  are  a  number  of  striking 
cases  of  the  idle  actor,  not  one  was  introduced  as  a  dramatic  device,  such 
as  the  Euripides  of  Aristophanes  professed  to  see  in  the  Phrygians  and 
the  Niohe.  This  is  not  to  say,  of  course,  that  the  poet  does  not  make  a  virtue 
of  necessity  now  and  then,  securing  a  striking  dramatic  effect  from  a 
situation  which  would  have  bafHed  a  lesser  poet.  It  was,  however,  a 
dramatic  effect  won  by  somewhat  violent  means,  and  as  such  more  or 
less  open  to  ridicule  by  the  comic  critic  of  a  later  generation. 

S7  In  the  latter  case  there  is,  of  course,  the  further  reason  that  she  was  not  to  be 
present  in  the  last  scene. 


32  THE   IDLE   ACTOR   IN  ^SCHYLUS 

In  this  survey  of  the  plays,  an  important  matter  has  been  mentioned 
only  incidentally — the  so-called  mutes.  It  is  not  uncommon  in  Sophocles 
and  Euripides  to  find  characters  referred  to  as  present  who  nevertheless 
say  nothing.  Such  parts  were  of  course  taken,  not  by  actors,  but  by 
supernumeraries.  In  other  cases  a  personage  who  elsewhere  speaks  is 
silent  through  a  scene,  and  the  number  of  other  characters  present  makes 
it  evident  that  here  the  part  is  temporarily  taken  by  a  person  who  is  not 
a  qualified  actor.  Taking  these  two  sorts  of  mutes  together,  we  find  that 
in  Sophocles  and  Euripides  they  average  about  one  to  a  play.  In  .^schylus, 
however,  if  we  omit  the  doubtful  case  of  Pylades,  there  are  but  two  instances, 
and  neither  very  noticeable — those  of  Bia  in  the  Prometheus  and  Hermes 
in  the  Enmenides  (see  vs.  90).  It  is  worth  noticing  that  the  mere  presence 
of  a  silent  person  is  not  necessarily  striking  or  awkward.  If  attention  is 
not  in  .some  way  called  to  him,  he  blends  with  the  attendants  and  other 
supernumeraries.  In  such  cases  as  these,  however,  the  mute  must  have 
worn  the  actor's  costume  to  prevent  incongruity,  and  so  the  effect  must 
have  been  practically  that  of  an  actor's  silence,  though  not  a  particularly 
noticeable  one. 

It  will  be  necessary  now,  for  the  sake  of  comparison,  to  consider  briefly 
the  cases  of  the  idle  actor  in  Sophocles  and  Euripides. 

Nothing  shows  more  clearly  the  superiority  of  Sophocles's  technique 
than  his  management  of  the  actors.  To  this  the  smooth  perfection  of  such 
a  play  as  the  Anlif^one  or  the  OLdipus  Rex  is  largely  due.  Brought  in  and 
sent  out  at  precisely  the  right  moment,  on  pretexts  so  natural  that  the 
practical  reason  is  entirely  concealed,  the  characters  are  seldom  felt  to  be 
in  the  way  even  for  an  instant. 

For  the  producing  of  such  a  result  the  perfected  theater  was  the  first 
essential.  In  si.x  of  the  seven  extant  plays  the  back-scene  represents  a 
dwelling — a  palace  in  the  Antigone,  (Ed i pus  Rex,  Eleclra,  and  Trachinia:; 
a  tent  in  the  Ajax;  a  cave  in  the  Philoctcles.  In  these  plays  the  movements 
are  so  easy  and  natural,  and  the  whole  management  of  the  characters  so 
perfect,  that  the  idleness  of  an  actor,  when  it  does  appear,  is  almost  invari- 
ably fitting  and  ctTcctivc.  In  such  a  case  the  character  is  not  awkwardly 
neglected:  he  is  constantly  present  to  the  mind  of  the  poet,  and  is  silent 
because  it  is  proper  and  dramatically  necessary  that  he  should  be  so.  I 
shall  first  consider  these  plays,  reserving  the  Qidipus  Coloneus  for  separate 
treatment. 

In  the  Antigone  the  heroine  stands  proudly  silent  while  the  messenger 
reports  her  disobedience  to  the  king  (vss.  384-440).     So  perfect  is  the 


THE   IDLE   ACTOR   IN   ^SCHYLUS  33 

arrangement  of  the  piece  that  no  other  case  can  be  regarded  as  certain. 
It  may  be  that  Creon  remains  through  two  odes  (582-625,  944-87).  Imme- 
diately after  the  former  the  chorus  calls  his  attention  to  the  approach  of 
Haemon,  and  at  the  close  of  the  latter,  Tiresias,  arriving,  addresses  him; 
but  there  is  no  great  difficulty  in  supposing  that  he  comes  from  the  palace 
at  both  these  points,  for  his  movements  are  as  easy  as  those  of  Clytemestra 
in  the  Agameynnon.^^ 

In  the  Ajax,  Odysseus  is  silent  through  fear  while  Athene  questions  the 
mad  Ajax  (89-117).  Tecmessa,  restrained  by  her  husband's  rebukes,  is 
quiet  while  he  laments  his  folly  and  converses  with  his  followers  and  his 
son  (371-409,  412-84,  545-77,  perhaps  646-84).  Teucer  is  appropriately 
silent  while  Ajax  and  Odysseus  discuss  his  cause  (1316-73). ^9 

In  the  (Edipiis  Rex,  the  priest  is  an  interested  hstener  while  Creon 
reports  the  oracle  (85-134),  and  Jocasta  while  the  chorus  intercedes  for 
Creon  (649-77).  Brilliantly  effective  is  her  silence  while  (Edipus  converses 
with  the  messenger,  unconsciously  revealing  the  fatal  truth  to  her  (989- 
1053).  Nor  is  it  awkward  that  the  messenger  stands  idle  while  (Edipus 
and  Jocasta  converse  (964-88)  and  while  the  shepherd  is  sent  for 
(1047-1118),  nor  that  Creon  is  silent  while  (Edipus  talks  with  his 
daughters  (1480-1502). 

In  the  Eleclra,  Electra  easily  remains  on  the  scene  during  the  brief 
odes,  472-515  and  1058-98,  which  are  partly  addressed  to  her;  and  also 
(rebuked  into  silence)  during  Clytemestra's  prayer  (634-59).  So,  though 
she  is  idle  680-787,  the  messenger's  story  is  really  for  her  ear  as  well  as 
Clytemestra's.  Again,  nothing  could  be  more  dramatic  than  the  ostensible 
disregarding  of  Orestes  while  Electra,  holding  the  urn,  addresses  the  dead 
Orestes  (1126-73). 

In  the  TrachinicB  it  is  natural  that  the  nurse  (being  a  mere  servant) 
should  remain  upon  the  scene  while  Deianeira,  following  her  advice,  sends 
her  son  after  Heracles  (61  ff.;  see  62).  Deianeira  is  present  through  the 
parodos  (94-140),  but  it  is  partly  addressed  to  her.  It  is  natural  that  the 
messenger  should  wait  quietly  until  Lichas  enters  the  house  (200-334), 

58  Muff,  Chorische  Technik  des  Sophocles,  p.  loi,  thinks,  with  Nauck,  that  he 
is  left  upon  the  scene  in  order  that  the  words  of  the  chorus  may  be  supposed  to  influence 
his  mind.  But  the  application  of  the  latter  song  to  his  case  is  far  from  direct,  and 
immediately  after  each  he  shows  his  stubbornness.  A  better  argument  for  the  view 
that  he  remains  might  be  drawn  from  the  analogous  passages  in  Euripides. 

59  In  the  first  stasimon  of  the  Ajax  (596-645)  it  is  possible,  but  not  probable, 
that  Tecmessa  remains.  See  Jebb's  note.  Welcker,  Rheinisches  Museum,  III  (1829), 
p.  87,  thinks  that  even  Ajax  remains  visible. 


34  THE   IDLE   ACTOR  IN  iESCHYLUS 

and  that  Deianeira  should  listen  in  silence  while  he  convicts  Lichas  of 
deceit  (402-28). 

In  the  Philoctetes  it  is  ven*  effective  that  Philoctetes  should  be  allowed 
to  overhear  the  conversation  between  Neoptolemus  and  the  supposed 
merchant  (542-77),  and  should  sleep  through  the  ode,  821-66.^°  Also  that 
Neoptolemus  should  listen  to  the  dispute  between  Odysseus  and  Philoctetes 
(982-1065),  a  struggle  going  on  in  his  own  mind  which  reveals  itself  after- 
ward. Nor  is  it  awkward  that  he  is  at  first  not  addressed  by  Hermes 
(1409-32),  for  he  is  soon  included  in  the  admonition  of  the  god. 

There  are,  however,  three  cases  in  these  plays  which  would  certainly 
be  felt  by  the  spectator,  as  by  the  reader,  to  be  somewhat  stiff  and  unnatural. 
These  are:  Tecmessa  in  the  latter  part  of  the  Ajax  (i  168-1420);  lole  in 
the  TrachinuB  (225-335);  and  Pylades  in  the  Electra  (1-85,  1098-1375, 
1422-36,  1466-1510).  Tecmessa  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  play  has  speak- 
ing parts  of  considerable  length,  but  lole  and  Pylades,  though  occasionally 
addressed,  are  silent  throughout  the  piece.  The  reason  is  not  difficult  to 
discover:  they  could  not  be  made  to  speak  without  the  employment  of  a 
fourth  actor;  the  parts  arc  therefore  taken  by  mutes.  But  the  effect  of  a 
silent  actor  is  there  in  any  event,  particularly  when  the  character  is  else- 
where a  speaking  person.  Of  course,  the  plot  might  have  been  altered  in 
each  case  so  as  to  avoid  this  silent  figure,  but  the  loss  involved  would 
have  been  serious.  In  the  Ajax,  the  poet  wanted  the  scene  between 
Odysseus,  Agamemnon,  and  Teucer,  and  also  the  picture  of  the  wife 
and  child  beside  the  body.  In  the  Trachinia:,  he  must  have  Deianeira, 
Lichas,  lole,  and  the  messenger  present  together,  or  sacrifice  much  of 
the  effect  of  the  scene.  In  the  Electra,  tradition  required  the  presence 
of  Pylades;  and  Orestes,  Electra,  and  ^gisthus  were  all  needed  in  the 
final  scene. ^' 

It  appears,  then,  that  in  these  si.x  plays  the  only  awkward  cases  of  the 
idle  character  are  due  to  the  limitation  in  the  number  of  actors.  Whether 
this  rule  had  a  practical  basis  or  was  merely  an  artistic  convention,  it  has 
plainly  had  in  these  cases  an  unfortunate  effect  on  Sophocles's  work. 

A  striking  contrast  to  the  generally  successful  management  in  these 
plays  is  afforded  by  the  Qidiptis  Coloneiis,  which  involves  more  long  periods 
of  silence  than  any  other  extant  tragedy.     This  is  doubtless  due  in  part  to 

6°  Neoptolemus  also  is  present,  but  he  takes  jiart  839-42,  and  Bcrgk  conjectures 
a  similar  four  lines  lost  between  854  and  855. 

6'  The  child  parts  played  by  mutes,  Eurysaces  in  the  .4/(7.v,  Antigone  and  Ismcnc 
in  the  QLdipiis  Tyrattnus,  need  not  be  considered,  since  no  special  awkwardness  is 
involved. 


THE   IDLE   ACTOR  IN   iESCHYLUS  35 

the  elaborate  plot  and  the  poetic  tone,  but  chiefly  to  the  simple  fact  that 
the  scene  is  not  laid  before  a  building.  The  background  represented  a 
grove  (14-18,  38-40, 114, 125, 156  f.,  505).^^  There  seems  to  have  been  an 
opening  in  the  center  of  the  back-scene,  or  at  least  some  object  (as  a  clump 
of  trees)  behind  which  one  could  retire,  for  (Edipus  and  Antigone  conceal 
themselves  on  the  first  appearance  of  the  chorus  (111-16)  and  reappear 
suddenly  (138  ff.).  This  could  not  have  been  done  had  they  been  obHged 
to  use  the  side  entrance.  The  same  means  of  exit  may  have  been  used  by 
Ismene  when  she  goes  to  perform  the  sacrifice  "beyond  the  grove"  (see 
505),  and  by  (Edipus  on  his  final  disappearance  (iSSS).'^^  Except  in  these 
few  cases,  all  entrances  and  exits  must  be  through  the  parodoi,  and  the 
characters  must  be  supposed  to  come  from  or  go  to  a  distance.  We  have 
thus  a  reproduction  of  early  conditions,  combined  with  a  more  elaborate 
plot  than  ^Eschylus  could  have  conceived.  The  result  is  an  extraordinary 
number  of  long  silences. 

(Edipus  must  remain  visible  through  most  of  the  piece,  but  it  is  not 
difficult  to  keep  him  occupied  for  the  greater  part  of  the  time.  He  is  idle 
during  the  quarrel  between  Theseus  and  Creon  (897-959,  1014-37),  during 
two  stasima  (1044-95,  12 11-48),  and  during  the  conversation  between 
Antigone  and  Polynices  (1405-56).  In  the  remaining  lyric  passages  in 
which  he  is  present  he  takes  part,  or  is  at  least  addressed. 

Antigone  fares  worse.  As  her  father's  constant  attendant  she  is  like- 
wise tied  to  the  spot,  and,  being  a  less  important  character,  she  cannot  be 
kept  well  employed.  She  is  thus  neglected  during  the  odes  117-69,  510-48, 
668-719,  and  1211-48;  during  the  dialogue  passages  36-80,  84-110, 
258-309- 353-420,  421-92,  549-667,  724-827,  1119-80, 1289-1404, 1505-41. 

The  same  fate,  in  a  lesser  degree,  overtakes  other  characters.  Ismene 
is  idle  421-92,  1096-1555;  Creon,  887-908;  Theseus,  960-1013,  1181-1205. 
Ismene's  long  silence  (1096-1555)  is  probably  due  to  the  assignment  of 
the  part  to  a  mute,  three  other  characters  being  present. ^4 

Euripides  began  his  work  with  many  things  in  his  favor,  and  the  earher 
extant  plays  show  how  easy  it  had  become  to  manage  the  actors  so  that 

62  See  Schonborn,  op.  ciL,  pp.  272  £f.;  Wieseler,  Gottingen  Nachrichten  (1890),, 
p.  215;  Jebb's  Introduction,  pp.  xxxvii  f.;  Bodensteiner,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  652,  776—78; 
Dorpfeld-Reisch,  op.  cit.,  pp.  209  f. 

63  With,  of  course,  the  reappearance  of  those  who  had  accompanied  him.  It 
seems  probable,  however,  that  the  exit  was  used  only  in  the  first-named  instance 
(ill— 16,  138),  since  they  were  then  polluting  sacred  ground. 

64  So  Wecklein,  ed.,  p.  8;  Teuffel,  Rheinisches  Museum,  N.  F.  IX  (1854),  pp. 
136  ff.  Miiller,  Geschichte  griechischer  Litteratur,  I,  p.  403,  prefers  to  assume  a 
fourth  actor. 


36  THE    IDLE    ACTOR   IX   -ESCHYLUS 

all  should  be  kept  employed  while  upon  the  scene.  The  Alceslis  and 
Medea  are  almost  entirely  free  from  awkward  periods  of  silence  on  the 
part  of  a  character.  This  is  due  partly  to  the  improved  theater,  which 
made  movement  easy;  partly  to  the  lesser  importance  of  the  chorus ;^s  and 
partly  to  the  example  of  Sophocles,  who  had  shown  how  perfectly  three- 
actor  scenes  could  be  arranged. 

This  smoothness  of  structure,  however,  soon  began  to  be  more  and 
more  broken  up  by  causes  which  lay  partly  in  circumstances  and  partly 
in  the  nature  of  Euripides's  genius.  In  the  first  place,  the  chorus  still 
remained  and  must  be  allowed  its  part  in  the  performance;  nor  was  it 
always  possible  to  remove  an  actor  for  an  ode  or  to  allow  him  to  take  part. 
In  the  second  place,  Euripides  in  his  desire  for  variety  introduced  novel 
situations  and  scenes,  which  made  the  improved  background  practically 
useless.  Finally,  and  more  important  than  all,  as  his  individual  style 
developed,  Euripides  showed  plainly  the  lack  of  Sophocles 's  peculiar  skill 
in  arranging  scenes.  In  particular,  he  became  fond  of  a  kind  of  scene 
which  is  favorable  for  displays  of  rhetoric,  but  is  too  stiff  and  artificial 
for  dramatic  effect.  A,  B,  and  C  appear  together;  A  and  B  have  a  long 
argument  in  which  C  is  disregarded;  then  A  and  C  converse,  neglecting  B. 
This  is  of  course  an  attempt  to  adapt  the  old  two-part  dialogue  to  a  three- 
actor  scene  and  shows  plainly  the  influence  of  the  Athenian  law-courts. 
It  is  only  necessary  to  compare  the  three-actor  scenes  in  Sophocles  to 
see  how  superior  he  was  in  this  sort  of  technique. 

From  these  various  causes,  the  phenomenon  of  the  neglected  actor 
becomes  more  and  more  common  in  the  work  of  Euripides  until  the  time 
of  the  Heracles  and  the  Suppliants,  when  it  reaches  a  clima.x.  It  then 
becomes  less  frequent,  as  Euripides's  taste  for  the  archaic  led  him  back  to 
simpler  plots.     The  cases  are  as  follows: 

Alceslis:  Admetus,  962-83  (only  the  latter  half  of  the  ode  is  addressed  to 
him). 

Medea:  Nurse,  144-67  (Medea  calls  from  the  house,  and  the  chorus  answers); 
Medea,  410-30,  627-62,  824-45,  1081-1115  (she  cannot  enter  the  house  of  her 
enemies,  and  so  must  remain  through  the  odes). 

Andromache:  Menclaus,  551-78,  Andromache,  577-716,  719-47  (three-part 
scene). 

Heraclida:  Copreus,  69-98,  lolaus,  101-117  (the  parodos  is  here  a  three-part 
scene);    lolaus,   118-80,  250-96,    Copreus,   181-249  (three-part   scene);    lolaus, 

*5  In  Kuripidcs  the  chorus  has  comparatively  little  share  in  the  dialogue.  It 
seldom  takes  an  important  part  in  the  conversation  when  two  or  more  actors  are 
present;    hence  the  cases  of  the  neglect  of  an  actor  from  this  cause  are  few. 


THE   IDLE    ACTOR   IN   ^SCHYLUS  37 

353-80,  Alcmene,  748-83  (suppliants  at  the  altar);  Demophon,  427-50  (lolaus 
speaks  to  children:  practically  a  three-part  scene);  Demophon,  478-566  (three- 
part  scene);  Alcmene,  667-708  (three-part  scene);  Alcmene,  720-47  (three-part 
scene);  Messenger,  941-60,  Eurj'stheus,  961-82  (three-part  scene).  The  temple 
in  the  background  is  but  little  used;  hence  much  of  the  awkwardness. 

Hippolylus:  Phjedra,  250-87,  Nurse,  364-432  (three-part  scene);  Phaedra, 
525-64  (she  listens  to  what  is  said  within  the  house);  Theseus,  1347-1406,  Artemis, 
1347-88  (three-part  scene). 

Hecuba:  Polyxena,  216-333,  Hecuba,  342-71,  Odysseus,  404-31  (three-part 
scene) ;  Hecuba,  444-98  (she  lies  wrapt  in  her  robe  during  the  stasimon) ;  Maid, 
726-889  (three-part  scene;  c}.  vs.  778);  Hecuba,  1056-1121  (she  avoids  the  blinded 
and  furious  Polymestor);  Hecuba,  1124-86,  Agamemnon,  1 197-1232,  1254-79 
(three-part  scene). 

Heracles:  Megara,  1-59  (while  Amphitr}'on  speaks  the  prologue);  Megara, 
165-274,  Lycus,  275-315,  Amphitrv'on,  240-77  (three-part  scene);  Amphitryon, 
442-96  (Megara  talks  to  children:  practically  a  three-part  scene);  Amphitr\'on, 
538-61,  Megara,  585-625  (three-part  scene);  Heracles,  1042-87  (kommos  while 
he  sleeps);  Heracles,  1 163-1202,  Amphitryon,  1214-135 7,  Theseus,  1358-85  (three- 
part  scene).  Megara's  periods  of  neglect  in  the  first  part  are  due  to  her  position 
as  a  suppliant  at  the  altar:  she  cannot  enter  the  house. 

lati:  Ion,  184-218  (during  the  entrance  of  the  chorus  he  is  busy  driving  away 
the  birds  from  the  temple);**^  Servant,  859-924  (Creusa's  apostrophe);  Creusa, 
1320-94  (three-part  scene);  Ion,  1571-1603  (three-part  scene). 

Suppliants:  Adrastus,  1-86  (cUnging  to  the  altar,  he  is  idle  during  the  pro- 
logue and  parodos);  Adrastus,  87-109,  263-364,  ^thra,  110-285  (three-part 
scene);  Adrastus,  365-512,  517-84  (three-part  scene);  Adrastus,  598-633  (stasi- 
mon); Adrastus,  634-733  (messenger  addresses  chorus:  practically  a  three-part 
scene);  Theseus,  772-837  (kommos  between  Adrastus  and  Chorus);  Adrastus 
and  Theseus,  11 14-64  (kommos  between  Chorus  and  children);  Adrastus, 
1 1 96- 1 23 1  (three -part  scene).  Through  nearly  the  whole  piece  one  or  more 
characters  are  neglected.  This  is  due  chiefly  to  the  situation:  the  suppliants 
must  remain  at  the  altar,  and  the  temple  in  the  background  is  not  used  for  entrances 
and  exits. 

Trojan  Women:  Hecuba,  1-97  (she  lies  wrapt  in  her  robe  during  the  pro- 
logue); Talthybius,  308-407,  Hecuba,  427-57  (three-part  scene);  Hecuba,  511-67 
(stasimon);  Hecuba,  709-89,  Talthybius,  740-73  (three-part  scene);  Hecuba, 
799-859  (stasimon);  Hecuba,  914-65,  Menelaus,  971-1028  (three-part  scene); 
Hecuba,  1060-1117  (stasimon). 

Electra:  Peasant,  364-403  (three-part  scene);  Electra,  598-646,  Old  Man, 
671-93  (three-part  scene);  Orestes,  907-58  (Electra  addresses  dead  .^gisthus; 
practically  a  three-part  scene);  Electra,  1238-1302  (three-part  scene). 

Helen:  Menelaus,  515-45,  1093-1183   (he  cannot  enter  the  palace  during 

66  Detscheff  {op.  cit.,  note  105)  thinks  that  he  enters  the  temple. 


38  THE    IDLE   ACTOR   IN   ^SCHYLUS 

the  odes);  Messenger,  623-99,  Menelaus,  711-33  (three-part  scene);  Menelaus, 
892-946,  Helen,  947-97  (three-part  scene);  Menelaus,  1 184-1249,  Helen, 
1250-84  (three-part  scene). 

Iphigenia  among  the  Taurians:  Iphigenia,  392-466  (stasimon);  Pylades, 
494-577,  582-611,  614-46  (three-part  scene);  Orestes,  744-71,  Pylades,  795-901, 
924-1055  (three-part  scene);  Orestes  and  Pylades,  1056-78  (Iphigenia  addresses 
Chorus:  practically  a  four-part  scene);  Thoas,  1445-66  (practically  a  four-part 
scene). 

Phcenician  Wamen:  Eteocles,  469-98,  Polynices,  499-567  (three-part  scene); 
Menocceus,  849-969  (three-part  scene);  Antigone,  1585-1630,  Creon,  1595-1619, 
(Edipus,  1643-75  (three-part  scene). 

Orestes:  Orestes,  1-210  (he  sleeps  through  the  prologue  and  parodos); 
Orestes,  352-79  (three-part  scene);  Orestes,  470-525,  Menelaus,  542-621  (three- 
part  scene);  Pylades,  1018-64,  Electra,  1065-1176  (three-part  scene). 

Iphigniia  at  Aulis:  Menelaus,  414-35  (three-part  scene);  Iphigenia, 
590-612  (three-part  scene);  Clytemestra,  640-84  (three-part  scene);  Achilles, 
866-95  (three-part  scene);  Iphigenia,  1129-1210,  Clytemestra,  121 1-75  (three- 
part  scene);  Iphigenia,  1345-68,  Achilles,  1369-1404,  Clytemestra,  1403-33 
(three-part  scene). 

Bacchce:  Cadmus,  215-50,  255-329,  Tiresias,  215-54,  330-57  (three-part 
scene);  Dionysus,  660-786  (three-part  scene) ;  Agave,  1308-28  (Cadmus 
addresses  dead   Pentheus;  practically   a   three-part  scene). 

Some  of  these  cases  are  natural  and  dramatically  effective,  as  in 
Sophocles;  such  are  Hippolyliis,  524-64,  250-87, 364-482, 1347-88;  Hecuba, 
444-83,  io^6~iioS;  Heracles,  1042-88,  1 163-1202; /on,  184-236,  1320-94; 
Orestes,  1-206,  352-79;  Iphigenia  at  Aulis,  590-630.  But  in  general  it 
cannot  be  supposed  that  the  elTect  was  desired  by  the  poet. 

It  remains  to  speak  of  the  cases  where  important  characters  are  repre- 
sented, either  temjwrarily  or  throughout  the  piece,  not  by  actors,  but  by 
mutes.     Child-parts  need  not  be  considered. 

In  Alcestis,  962  fT.,  Alcestis  (brought  back  from  the  grave)  is  persist- 
ently silent,  and  this  is  cxi)lained  as  due  to  religious  scruples.  It  is  dif^kult 
to  believe  that  Euripides  would  have  missed  such  an  opportunity  for  pallios 
without  a  practical  reason,  and  the  fact  that  elsewhere  only  two  actors  are 
re(iuircd  suggests  the  true  cause:  for  some  reason  or  other,  quite 
unknown  to  us,  only  two  were  available.  The  same  reason  (the  paucity 
of  actors)  caused  the  parts  of  Pylades  and  Hermione  in  the  last  scene  of 
the  Orestes  to  be  given  to  mutes. 

Pylades  and  one  of  the  Dio.scuri  in  the  Electro,  and  one  of  the  Dioscuri 
in  the  Helen,  were  played  throughout  by  mutes.  Of  these  only  the  case  of 
Pylades  is  noticeably  awkward,  and  hero  the  example  of  .^tischylus  and 
Sophocles  had  established  a  convention. 


THE    IDLE   ACTOR   IN   ^SCHYLUS  39 

Adding  up  all  the  "idle"  lines  in  Euripides  and  comparing  them  with 
the  sum  of  the  lines  in  the  plays,  we  find  that  they  amount  to  about  one- 
fourth,  a  slightly  larger  proportion  than  in  ^^schylus  and  about  the  same 
as  in  Sophocles. 

In  conclusion  I  wish  to  compare  the  methods  of  the  three  dramatists 
in  dealing  with  a  particular  phase  of  the  problem;  namely,  the  disposing 
of  the  actors  during  lyric  passages — parodos  and  stasima.  It  must  be 
remembered  that  these  passages  were  the  earliest  to  take  shape,  and  that 
it  was  about  these  lyrics  as  nuclei  that  the  drama  grew.  In  the  period  of 
the  single  actor  it  must  have  been  comparatively  easy  to  dispose  of  that 
actor  while  the  choruses  were  sung,  for  his  short  speeches  were  mere  inci- 
dents, and  he  naturally  withdrew  as  soon  as  they  were  finished.  But  with 
the  steady  increase  in  the  importance  of  the  dialogue  parts  and  the  corre- 
sponding diminution  of  the  choruses,  the  removing  of  the  actors  at  the 
end  of  prologue  and  episode  became  a  matter  of  no  little  difficulty. ^^  We 
have  seen  how  ^Eschylus  wrestled  with  the  problem,  and  partly  succeeded, 
partly  failed,  in  giving  verisimilitude  to  situations  in  themselves  improb- 
able. In  the  earher  plays  he  removes  characters  on  unlikely  pretexts,  or 
leaves  them  frankly  idle ;  in  the  later  ones  he  often  lets  them  slip  unnoticed 
into  the  building  in  the  rear.  Only  once  does  he  turn  the  parodos  into  a 
part-song  between  actor  and  chorus.  With  Sophocles  and  Euripides  the 
circumstances  were  changed;  the  odes  were  now  shorter,  the  characters 
more  numerous.  It  was  natural  that  the  continuous  presence  of  an  actor 
should  be  regarded  with  less  aversion,  and  in  fact  the  occurrence  became 
distinctly  more  common.  At  the  same  time,  the  parodos  was  often  made  a 
kommos^^  (especially  where  it  was  natural  that  the  chorus  should  question 
the  actor  about  the  state  of  affairs),  and  the  stasimon  was  often  addressed 
partly  or  wholly  to  the  actor. ^^ 

The  parodos  and  stasima  in  which  an  actor  is  present  are  the  following. 
I  have  given  in  each  case  the  number  of  fines  in  which  an  actor  is  neglected, 

67  The  real  source  of  the  trouble  was,  of  course,  the  continuous  presence  of  the 
chorus,  which  rendered  scene-change  practically  impossible. 

68  The  innovation  seems  to  have  been  slow  in  coming  in,  however.  The  CEdipus 
Tyrannus  and  Trachinia,  for  example,  might  well  have  had  kommatic  parodoi; 
see  Detscheff,  op.  cit.,  p.  45. 

69  Euripides  sometimes  gives  the  first  half  of  an  ode  to  gmeral  reflections,  the 
second  to  an  address  to  the  person  present.  So  Alcestis,  962-1005;  Medea,  410-45, 
824-65,  976-1001;  HeraclidcB,  608-29. 


40  THE    IDLE   ACTOR   IN    -ESCHYLUS 

i.  e.,  neither  speaking  nor  spoken  to,  even  where  it  is  very  small,  and 
italicized  the  cases  where  the  actor  is  neglected  throughout  the  ode. 

iESCHYLUS 

Suppliants:   1-175  (Danaus,  lyj  //.);   625-709  (Danaus,  S5  II.). 

Persians:   623-80  CAtossa,  53  11.)- 

Seplem:    78-180  (Eteocles,  loj  II.) . 

Promelheus:  128-92  (Prometheus,  o  11.);  397-435  (Prometheus,  o  11.); 
526-60  (Prometheus,  14  11.);   887-906  {Prometheus,  20  IL). 

Af^amemnon:   975-1034  (Cassandra,  $(^  II.). 

Choephoroi:    22-83  {Electra,  61  II.). 

Eumenides:  307-96  {Orestes,  go  II.);  490-565  {Orestes,  76  //.);  77S-880 
(.\thcne,  10  11.). 

SOPHOCLES 

Antigone:   582-625  {Creon,  44  II.)  (?);   944-87  {Creon,  44  II.)  (?). 

Ajax:  866-973  (Tecmessa,  present  891-973,  10  11.);  1 185-1222  {Tecmessa, 
mute,  3S  II.). 

(Edipus  Tyrannus:    1085-1109  (CEdipus,  12  11.,  messenger,  24  //.). 

Electra:  121-250  (Electra,  o  11.);  472-515  (Electra,  12  11.);  823-70  (Electra, 
oil.);    1058-97  (Electra,  23  11.). 

Trachinice:   94-140  (Deianeira,  27  11.);   205-24  (Deianeira,  17  11.). 

Philoctetes:    135-218  (Neoptolcmus,  o  11);    827-64  {Philoctetes,  38  //.). 

Q^.dipus  Coloneus:  117-253  (CEdipus,  40 11.,  .Vntigone,  93  11.);  510-48  (CEdipus, 
o  11.,  Antigone,  jg  II.);  668-719  (CEdipus,  8  11.,  Antigone,  52  //.);  1044-95  {(Edi- 
pus, ^2  II.);    1211-48  {CEdipus,  jS  //.,  Antigone,  jS  II.,  Ismene,  mute,  j8  //.). 

EURIPIDES 

Alcestis:   962-1005  (Admetus,  22  11.). 

Medea:  131-213  (Nurse,  present  131-203,  24  11.);  410-45  (Medea,  21  11.); 
627-62  {Medea,  36  II.);    824-65  (Medea,  22  11.);    976-1001  (Medea  14  11.). 

Andromache:    117-46  (Andromache,  o  11.);    274-308  (.Andromache,  o  11.). 

Heraclidce:  73-110  (Coprcus,  26  11.,  lolaus,  10  11.);  353-80  {lolaus,  2S  II.); 
608-29  (lolaus,  10  11.);   748-83  {Alcmene,  36  II.)  . 

Ilippolytus:   525-64  {Pluedra,  3g  II.);    1268-82  {Theseus,  75  //.). 

Hccuha:   98-176  (Hecuba,  o  11.);    444-83  {Hecuba,  40  II.). 

Heracles:    107-37  (Amphiarcus,  30  11.,  Megara,  28  11.). 

Ion:    184-236  (Ion,  35  11.). 

Suppliants:  42-86  {Adrastus,  4^  II.,  .Ethra,  16  11.);  598-633  {Adrastus ^ 
36  II.). 

Trojan  Women:  153-229  (Hecuba,  o  11.);  511-67  {Hecuba,  37  H.);  799-859 
(Hecuba,  61  //.);    1060-1117  (Hecuba,  55//.). 

Electra:   167-212  (Electra,  o  11.);   859-879  (Electra,  o  11.). 

Helen:  191-251  (Helen,  o  11.);  515  27  (.U<7/</(n<.v,  /  7 //.);  i\o-j-64  (Mcnelaus, 
58  II.). 


THE   IDLE   ACTOR   IN  .ESCHYLUS 


41 


Iphigenia  among  the  Taurians:  123-235  (Iphigenia,  14  11.);  643-56  (Orestes, 
5  11.,  Pylades,  5  H-)- 

Phomician  Women:  None. 

Orestes:    140-207  {Orestes,  68  II. ,  Electra,  o  11.);    316-47  (Orestes,  20  11.). 

Iphigenia  at  Aulis:   None. 

Bacch<E:   None. 

The  results  may  be  tabulated  as  follows:'" 


Number 
of  Plays 

Odes  in 
Which 
Actor  is 
Present 

Average 
to  Play 

Odes  in 
Which 
Actor  is 
Entirely 
Neglected 

Average 
to  Play 

Total 

Lines 

Neglected 

Average 
to  Play 

j^schylus 

Sophocles 

Euripides 

7 

7 

17 

13 

18 

33 

1.86 

2-57 
1.94 

8 

7 

14 

I. 14 
I  .00 
0.82 

746 
611 
892 

107 
87 
52 

The  extant  tragedies  as  a  whole  may  be  roughly  but  conveniently 
divided  into  three  classes — simple,  developed,  and  loose.  By  a  simple 
tragedy  I  mean  one  that  shows  clearly  the  influence  of  the  form  from 
which  tragedy  arose — the  alternation  of  songs  with  two-part  dialogues. 
In  such  a  tragedy  the  lines  of  conventionality  are  still  too  closely  followed 
to  allow  of  much  verisimilitude  in  the  arrangement  of  the  plot,  and  the 
aim  of  the  poet  is  achieved  if  the  play  be  neatly  constructed,  clear,  and 
fairly  well  motived.  Such  a  play  is  apt  to  fall  apart  on  examination  into 
a  succession  of  distinct  episodes,  not  all  essential  to  the  story,  alternating 
with  choral  songs.  In  this  class  may  be  placed  the  Suppliants,  Persians, 
Septem,  and  Prometheus  of  ^Eschylus. 

A  developed  tragedy  is  one  in  which  the  old  form  is  less  rigidly  obvious 
and  now  exists  as  the  skeleton  which  supports  the  play  without  impeding 
it.  The  divisions  are  less  marked,  and  the  play  has  become  an  organic 
whole.  Clever  motiving  and  arrangement  bring  the  characters  upon  the 
scene  at  the  right  moment,  and  remove  them  when  they  cease  to  be  needed. 
The  various  threads  of  the  action  are  closely  interwoven,  and  there  are 
no  loose  ends.  To  this  class  belong  the  Agamemnon  of  ^schylus;  the 
Ajax,  Antigone,  Electra,  Trachinice,  (Edipus  Tyrannus,  and  Philodetes  of 
Sophocles;  and  the  Alcestis,  Medea,  Hippolytus,  Ion,  Iphigenia  among 
the  Taurians,  Iphigenia  at  Aidis,  Helen,  Electra,  and  Bacchce  of  Euripides. 

70  Apparently  at  a  still  later  period  more  pains  were  taken  to  avoid  the  presence 
of  actors  during  odes.  In  Seneca,  seven  of  the  eight  parodoi  and  thirty-four  of  the 
thirty-six  stasima  are  given  without  actors  present. 


42  THE    IDLE    ACTOR   IN    -ESCHYLUS 

By  a  loose  tragedy  I  mean  one  in  which  the  old  form  is  not  merely 
concealed,  but  to  some  extent  disintegrated.  It  is  no  longer  stiff  enough  to 
support  the  structure,  which  becomes  in  consequence  somewhat  flabby. 
While  the  general  course  of  the  play  may  be  direct  and  consistent  enough, 
there  is  a  tendency  to  lose  that  distinctness  of  function  of  everv'  part  which 
was  the  result  of  the  development  of  tragedy  from  a  simple  original.  To 
this  class  belong  the  Cho'ephoroi  and  Eumenides  of  .^schylus;  the  CEdipus 
Coloneiis  of  Sophocles;  and  the  Hecuba,  Andromache,  Heracles,  Sup- 
pliants, Heraclida,  Trojan  Women,  Plvenician  Women,  and  Orestes  of 
Euripides. 

The  idle  actor  is  really  a  different  phenomenon  in  each  of  these  three 
classes  of  plays.  In  a  simple  tragedy  he  appears  as  a  fault  in  the  structure. 
In  spite  of  all  the  poet's  efforts,  occasions  arise  on  which  a  character  can 
be  neither  employed  nor  removed.  The  characters  being  few,  the  neglect 
is  noticeable,  and  the  poet  is  usually  quite  conscious  of  the  awkwardness, 
and  .sometimes  apologizes  for  it. 

In  the  second  class  the  artist's  tools  are  more  elaborate  and  his  mastery 
of  them  more  complete.  The  characters  are  more  numerous  and  move 
more  easily,  and  if  one  be  dropped  from  the  dialogue,  there  are  various 
ways  of  accounting  for  his  silence  and  making  it  natural;  nor  is  it  in  itself 
so  noticeable  a  thing.  The  bulk  of  Sophocles's  work  is  of  this  sort,  and 
a  part  of  that  of  Euripides  is  scarcely  inferior,  but  the  latter's  scenes  are 
marred  by  the  deliberate  adoption  of  the  pecuHar  form  of  three-part  scene 
already  described. 

The  plays  of  the  third  class  are  so  freely  constructed  that  the  idle  actor 
is  hardly  felt  as  a  defect.  Episodes  and  stasima  are  often  blurred  together 
by  the  continuous  pre.sence  of  an  actor,  and  the  characters  are  held  with 
so  loose  a  hand  that  the  spectator  hardly  notices  when  they  come  or  go. 
This  stage  is  in  a  sense  the  breaking  up  of  the  old  tragedy  as  an  art-form. 

I  have  tried  to  show  that  the  instances  of  the  idle  actor  in  the  e.xtant 
plays  of  .^schylus  can  invariably  be  referred  to  practical  causes — that 
when  artistically  effective  they  arc  so  merely  because  the  poet  had  learned 
to  turn  to  account  a  thing  that  conditions  forced  upon  him;  that  Sophocles 
u.sed  the  idle  actor  more  artistically,  but  could  return  to  early  crudeness 
when  the  older  conditions  were  partially  reproduced;  that  Euripides,  with 
all  his  advantages,  was  inferior  to  Sophocles  in  this  sort  of  technique. 

It  may  be  objected  that  I  have  enlarged  the  matter  far  beyond  the 
simple  charge  of  Aristophanes,  making  it  include  all  instances  in  which  an 
actor  drops  from  the  dialogue  or  is  disregarded  during  an  ode;  it  may  also 


THE    IDLE    ACTOR   IN   iESCHYLUS 


43 


be  said  that,  since  the  plays  to  which  Aristophanes  refers  are  lost,  we  cannot 
examine  what  were  probably  the  most  striking  cases.  All  this  is  true;  but 
the  point  is  this:  having  determined  be)'ond  a  doubt  that  the  classic  drama- 
tists, and  especially  ^Eschylus,  were  constantly  struggling  with  the  difficulty 
of  keeping  the  actors  employed  when  present,  we  are  justified  in  assuming 
that  all  instances  of  the  idle  actor  originated,  not  in  a  striving  after  exagger- 
ated efifect,  but  in  the  obstacles  opposed  by  conditions  to  the  rise  of  the 
drama. 

To  return,  then,  to  the  criticism  of  Aristophanes  on  ^schylus.  It 
remains,  of  course,  a  possibiUty  that  in  certain  cases  the  silence  of  an 
actor  was  a  thing  deliberately  sought  for,  though  the  evidence  of  the 
extant  plays  is  against  such  a  view.  It  is  possible,  that  is  to  say,  that 
Achilles  and  Niobe  were  shown  as  silent  figures  because  the  poet  thought 
the  effect  desirable,  but  the  analogy  of  extant  scenes  suggests  that  the 
thing  originated  in  a  practical  difficulty.  They  were  idle,  says  Aris- 
tophanes, while  the  chorus  sang  a  long  ode;  for  the  reason,  we  may  add, 
that  the  poet  did  not  know  what  else  to  do  with  them.  Hampered  by 
tradition,  by  material  disadvantages,  and  by  the  immaturity  of  his  art,  he 
was  forced  to  do,  not  what  he  would,  but  what  he  could.  A  clear  under- 
standing of  the  difficulties  which  beset  him  should  increase,  rather  than 
diminish,  our  admiration  for  the  genius  of  ^Eschylus. 


^^0^^f^^\ 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBR, 

III 

CD0b3MQ733 


